Stom  t^e  £i6rarg  of 

(ptofmox  ^amuef  (Qtiffer 

in  (gtemorj?  of 

3[ub3e  ^amuef  OttfPer  QSrecftmrtbge 

(J}re0enfeb  fig 

^amuef  (Qliffer  QBrecftinribge  feong 

to  f 9e  fetfiratg  of 

(Dtinceton  t6eofocctcaf  Smiutv 

BX  8955  .W66  1838 
Wood,  James,  1799-1867. 
Old  and  new  theology 


<^4^£4^S^ 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY: 

OR  AN  EXHIBITION  OF 
THOSE    DIFFERENCES    WITH    REGARD    TO 

SCaiFTURE  DOCTRIIVES, 

WHICH  HAVE  RECENTLY  AGITATED  AND  NOW  DIVIDED 

THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 


"  No  man  having  drank  old  wine,  straightway  desireth  new 
for  he  saith,  the  old  is  better." — Luke  v.  39, 


BY  JAMES  WOOD. 


PHILADELPHIA  :    WM.  S.  MARTIEN.     NEW-YORK  :    ROBERT 
CARTER.       ALBANY  :    E.  H.  PEASE. 

183§. 


-S^^^^l&p 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1838,  by 
James  V/ood,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
Northern  District  of  New- York. 


Gr.  M.  Davison,  Printer^ 

Saratoga  Springs. 


CONTENTS. 


IXTRODUCTIOX. 

Chap.  I.  The  character  and  government  of  God. 

Chap  II.  God's  covenant  with  Adam  and  our  relation  to  him 

as  our  federal  head— involving  the  doctrme  of  miputation 

and  original  sin. 
Chap.  III.  The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  continued- 
exhibiting  the  New  Theoloey  concerning  God's  covenant 

with  Adam  as  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  imputation, 

original  sin,  &c. 
Chap  IV.  Remarks  on  imputation,  original  sin,  &c.  with  refer- 

ence  to  the  views  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
Chap.  V.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  justification  through 

him. 
Chap.  VI.    Justification— a    continuation    of   the    preceding 

chapter. 
Chap.  VII.  Human  ability,  regeneration,  and  the  influences  of 

the  Holy  Spirit. 
Chap.  VIII.  Human  ability,  regeneration,  &c.  continued  from 

the  preceding  chapter. 
Chap.  IX.  A  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology, 

by  way  of  review,  and  a  notice  of  the  Perfectionism  ot  Mr. 

Finney. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  numerous  instances  during  the  past  year  the  question 
has  been  proposed  to  me,  '  What  is  the  diffei-ence  between 
the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Old  and  New  School  r'  Though 
several  books  and  pamphlets  have  been  written  on  a 
number  of  these  points,  and  though  most  if  not  all  of  them 
have  been  discussed  at  various  times  in  our  periodicals, 
there  are  many  in  our  churches  who  are  Bot  sufficiently 
informed  on  the  subject,  particularly  in  those  sections 
where  the  new  doctrines  have  not  become  prevalent,  and 
where  but  few  publications  on  the  points  at  issue  have 
been  circulated.  Recent  occurrences  render  it  peculiarly 
important  that  all  in  our  connexion  should  fully  understand 
the  merits  of  the  question.  It  has  now  become  a  practical 
one.  A  decision  is  now  being  made  whether  we  will  con-, 
tinue  with  the  church  of  our  former  choice,  or  unite  with 
those  who,  without  changing  their  name,  have  organized 
a  new  body.  With  a  view  of  giving  information  to  such 
as  desire  to  ascertain  on  which  side  the  truth  lies,  we  shall 
present,  in  as  concise  a  manner  as  the  case  will  admit,  the 
distinguishing  features  of  the  JVew  Theology — comparing 
them,  as  we  proceed,  with  those  doctrines  which  have,  by 


6  Introduction. 


way  of  contrast,  been  denominated  old.  For  the  senti- 
ments of  the  old  school  we  shall  refer  to  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  church  and  to  stand- 
ard Calvinistic  writers.  We  think  this  cannot  be  rea- 
sonably objected  to,  even  by  our  new  school  brethren; 
since  they  have  never  charged  the  former  with  departing 
from  the  Confession  of  Faith.  For  the  new  school  doc- 
trines, we  shall  make  quotations  from  the  professors  at 
New-Haven,  Mr.  Finney,  and  various  ministers  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  We  quote  from  those  first  named, 
because  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  associates,  though  belonging 
to  another  denomination,  are  regarded  as  the  modern 
authors  of  these  speculations  ;  and  Mr.  Finney,  until 
within  a  few  years  past,  belonged  to  our  body,  and  preach- 
ed and  published  most  of  his  sentiments  on  these  subjects 
before  he  left  the  church. 

Some  of  the  new  doctrines  began  to  be  broached  at 
New-Haven  in  1821-22,  which  created  much  dissatisfaction 
in  the  minds  of  a  number  who  were  made  acquainted  with 
the  fact.  In  1826  Professor  Fitch  published  his  discourses 
on  the  Nature  of  Sin,  and  this  was  followed  by  a  series  of 
communications  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  on  the  Means 
of  Regeneration.  The  former  were  reviewed  by  Dr. 
Green  in  the  Christian  Advocate,  and  the  latter  called 
forth  a  controversy  between  Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler. 
In  1828  Dr.  Taylor  delivered  his  Conclo  ad  Clerum,  which 
was  the  cause  of  Dr.-Woods'  writinjz  his  Letters  addressed 


Introduction. 


to  Dr.  Taylor  ;  and  the  whole  series  taken  together  drew 
from  Dr.  Griffin  his  treatise  on  Divine  Efficiency,  and  led 
to  the  establishnient  of  the  East  Windsor  Theological 
Seminary. 

Mr.  Finney,  who  was  hopefully  converted  and  licensed 
to  preach  a  few  years  previous,  became  celebrated  as  an 
evangelist  in  Western  New- York,  in  1825-26.  Though 
distinguished  at  first  rather  by  "  new  measures"  than  by 
new  doctrines,  he  soon  adopted  the  views  of  Dr.  Taylor ; 
and  he  has  probably  done  more  to  give  them  currency  in 
certain  sections  of  the  church  than  any  other  individual. 
On  some  points  he  has  gone  farther  than  his  archetype  ; 
and  on  all  perhaps  has  expressed  himself  with  more  frank- 
ness and  less  caution — asserting  in  positive  terms  what  the 
former  taught  only  by  affirming,  that  the  contrary  could 
not  be  'proved.  His  lectures  and  sermons  were  the  subject 
of  animadversion  in  several  periodicals  ;  and  as  I  happen 
to  know,  a  certain  minister  seriously  urged  one  of  his 
(Mr.  Finney's)  co-presbyters  to  commence  process  against 
him;  but  nothing  of  this  kind,  I  believe,  was  ever  at- 
tempted. 

In  1829  Mr.  Barnes  preached  and  published  his  sermon 
on  the  Way  of  Salvation  ;  which  disclosed  the  fact  that  on 
a  number  of  points  he  agreed  substantially  with  the  new 
system ;  and  upon  his  being  called,  some  months  after- 
wards, to  a  pastoral  charge  in  Philadelphia,  some  of  the 
members  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery  objected  to  re- 


8  Introduction. 


ceiving  and  installing  him,  on  the  ground  that  his  sermon, 
which  had  been  extensively  circulated  in  that  city, 
contained  important  errors  in  doctrine.  The  action  of 
the  Presbytery,  Synod  and  General  Assembly,  in  1830-81, 
the  publication  of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans  in  1835,  and 
the  charges  and  trials  for  heresy  during  that  and  the  fol- 
lowing year,  are  too  lamiliar  to  all  connected  with  our 
church,  to  need  any  particular  notice.  The  preceding 
statements  have  been  made  merely  to  show  the  coinci- 
dence between  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  new  divinity 
in  New  England  and  its  commencement  and  extension  in 
the  Presbyterian  church. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  controversy  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  does  not  respect  doctrines  at  all,  except  as 
a  secondary  thing.  Some  have  told  us  it  is  a  strife  for 
power — others  a  contest  for  the  purse — and  others  a 
thrust  at  Congregationalism,  and  through  that  at  New 
England.  With  whatever  view  these  allegations  have 
been  made,  the  effect  of  them  has  been  to  produce  distrust 
and  disunion  in  many  cases  where  there  would  otherwise 
have  been  a  hearty  concurrence  in  most  if  not  ail  of  the 
measures  adopted  for  the  reform  of  the  church.  This  has 
been  particularly  the  case  with  some  whose  partialities  are 
strong  in  favor  of  New  England.  It  would  seem  that 
such  had  forgotten  for  the  time,  that  in  New  England  the 
same  controversy  is  going  on  which  has  agitated  and  rup- 
tured the  Presbyterian  church.      If  it  is  a  war  against 


Introduction.  9 


New  England,  how  does  it  happen  that  many  of  their 
ablest  theologians  have  taken  sides  with  the  assailants? 
nay,  that  they  were  the  first  in  raising  the  note  of  alarm  ? 
The  language  of  Dr.  Green,  in  1831,  undoubtedlyexpresses 
the  feelings  of  a  large  majority  if  not  of  all  the  ministers 
in  the  Presbyterian  church.  "  What !"  we  have  heard  it 
said,  even  by  some  who  love  us,  "  What !  are  you  array- 
ing yourselves'  against  the  whole  theology  of  New  En- 
gland r"  No — we  have  answered  privately,  and  now 
answer  publicly.  No — we  are  arraying  ourselves  against 
Taylorism,  and  Fitchism,  and  Murdockism,  and  Emmon- 
ism,  and  self-conversionism.  But  we  thank  God,  this  is 
not  "  the  whole  theology  of  New-England,"  and  v/e  hope 
and  believe  it  never  will  be.  We  know  that  there  is  a 
host  of  men,  sound  in  the  faith,  who  dislike  and  oppose 
most  decisively,  this  whole  mass  of  error ;  and  we  hail 
these  men,  and  love  them  as  fellow  laborers  in  the  cause 
of  truth,  and  bid  them  God  speed  with  all  our  hearts. 

Though  in  the  progress  of  the  difficulties  son:ie  promi- 
nence has  been  given  of  late  to  Congregationalism,  it  was 
only  from  the  circumstance  that  this  was  believed  to  have 
an  important  connection  with  the  main  question  at  issue. 
It  is  not  the  Congregationalism  of  New  England,  that  was 
the  subject  of  discussion,  but  Congregationalism  in  the 
Presbyterian  church.  Against  Congregationalism,  as  such, 
there  exists  no  hostility;  but  when,  through  the  plan  of 
union,  it  became  the  means,  like  the  Trojan  horse,  of  in- 


10  Introduction, 


troducing  into  our  body  many  who  were  unfriendly  to  our 
doctrines  and  government,  it  became  necessary,  in  self- 
defence,  to  free  the  church  from  this  improper,  and  to  us 
ruinous  connection.* 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  resolutions  of 
the  General  Assembly  concernincr  certain  benevolent  soci- 
eties. Towards  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society 
and  the  American  Education  Society,  in  their  incipient 
stages,  and  considered  merely  as  organizations  for  doing 
good,  there  was  for  a  number  of  years  the  greatest  cordi- 
ality. This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they  were  repeat- 
edly recommended  by  the  General  Assembly.  But  when 
it  was  found  that  their  operations  within  our  bounds,  be- 
sides interfering  with  the  free  action  of  our  own  Boards, 
were  made  the  instruments  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
managed  the  various  Presbyterian  auxiliaries,  of  increasing 
and  extending  our  difficulties,  and  rendering  them  more 
unmanageable — the  one  by  furnishing  young  men  for  our 


*  According  to  the  statement  published  by  me,  as  corrected 
in  the  2d  edition,  there  are  in  the  four  disowned  Synods  334 
churches  nominally  Presbyterian,  and  286  Congregational.  A 
short  time  ago,  a  minister  who  was  then  a  member  of  the  Ot- 
sego Presbytery,  observed  to  me,  if  you  have  reported  as  favor- 
ably concerning  all  the  Presbyteries  as  you  have  concerning 
ours,  they  have  no  reason  to  complain.  Instead  of  there  being 
8  Presbyterian  and  3  Congregational  churches,  as  reported  by 
me,  there  are,  he  said,  but  6  Presbyterian  churches  and  10  Con- 
gregational. 


Introduction.  1 1 


pulpits  whose  sentiments  did  not  accord  with  our  stand- 
ards, and  the  other  by  directing  and  sustaining  them  in 
their  fields  of  labor — the  Assembly  of  1837  withdrew  their 
former  recommendations  and  requested  them  to  cease  op- 
erating in  our  churches.  As  in  their  action  concerning 
the  plan  of  union  and  the  four  Synods,  so  in  regard  to 
these  societies;  the  ground  of  their  proceedings  was,  that 
they  believed  them  to  be  (to  use  their  own  language) 
"  exceedingly  injurious  to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the 
Presbyterian  church" — and^while  they  "hoped  and  believed 
that  the  Assembly  would  not  be  behind  the  protesters, 
[the  patrons  of  those  societies]  in  zeal  for  the  spread  of 
divine  truth,  they  desire  that  in  carrying  on  those  great 
enterprises,  the  church  may  not  be  misled  to  adopt  a 
system  of  action  which  may  be  perverted  to  the  spread  of 
error." 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  controversy  has  little 
or  no  respect  to  doctrines.  On  the  contrary,  the  principal 
and  primary  ground  of  it,  has  been  a  discrepancy  in  doc- 
trinal sentiments.  Its  origin  may  be  traced  to  the  opinion 
so  prevalent  of  late,  among  certain  classes  of  men,  that  we 
ought  to  expect  as  great  improvements  in  theology  as 
have  been  made  in  the  arts  and  sciences — that  those  for- 
mularies of  Christian  faith,  which  have  been  received  for 
centuries  as  containing  a  correct  statement  of  Scripture 
doctrine,  are  too  antiquated  for  this  enlightened  age  ;  and 
if  re'ceived  now,  are  to  be  explained  agreeably  to  certain 


12  Introduction. 


philosophical  principles  which  were  unknown  in  the  days 
of  our  ancestors — and  that  the  Bible  itself  is  to  be  so  ex- 
pounded as  to  accord  with  those  theories  of  mind,  of  free 
agency  and  of  moral  government,  which  have  been  intro- 
duced by  the  new  philosophy.  It  is  this  which  gives  to 
their  theology  the  denomination  of  new.  Considered 
chronologically,  it  is  far  from  being  new.  Similar  senti- 
-ments  were  advanced  on  most  of  the  points  in  dispute,  as 
long  ago  as  the  time  of  Pelagius,  and  they  have  sprung  up 
and  flourished  for  a  while  at  different  periods  since.  Were 
this  the  proper  place,  we  could  easily  substantiate  this  re- 
mark, by  a  reference  to  documents. 

The  principles  upon  which  these  modern  improvements 
in  theology  profess  to  be  based,  appear  to  me  to  be  radi- 
cally erroneous.  If  the  doctrines  of  religion  were  as  diffi- 
cult  to  be  discovered  by  a  diligent  reader  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  as  the  laws  and  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
are  to  an  observer  of  the  planets,  the  march  of  mind  might 
be. expected  to  be  as  visible  in  the  developement  of  new 
theological  truths,  as  in  the  discoveries  of  astronomy.  But 
the  Bible,  I  have  always  supposed^  has  recorded  truth  in 
order  to  reveal  it ;  and  not  to  place  it  so  far  beyond  the 
reach  of  common  observation,  as  to  require  the  aid  of  a 
telescope  to  enable  us  to  discern  its  character  and  propor- 
tions. Truth  is  immutable.  The  Bible  is,  therefore,  not 
to  be  interpreted  by  a  set  of  philosophical  dogmas,  which 
vary,  it  may  be,  with  every  successive  age :  but  by  a 


Introduction,  13 


careful  examination  and  comparison  of  its  several  words 
and  phrases.  These  obvious  way-marks  were  the  same 
in  the  time  of  Augustine  and  Calvin,  and  the  Westminster 
divines,  as  they  are  now ;  and  it  is  by  a  faithful  adherence 
to  these,  that  so  much  uniformity  has  been  preserved 
among  christians  of  every  age,  in  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  our  holy  religbn.  Abstruse  metaphysical  speculations 
have  now  and  then  held  out  their  false  lights,  and  led  por- 
tions of  the  church  into  error;  but  whenever  the  pride  of 
intelject  and  learning  has  been  humbled  by  'the  Spirit  of 
Godj  and  there  has  been  a  return  to  that  simple  hearted 
piety,  which  is  willing  to  receive  the  plain  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  they  are  con- 
sistent with  certain  new  modes  of  philosophizing,  it  has 
uniformly  resulted  in  the  revi.val  of  those  old  and  venera- 
ble doctrines,  which  have  been  the  stability  and  glory  of 
the  church  in  eyery  period  of  her  history. 

We  do  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea,  that  all  who  are 
now  denominated  New  School,  or  who  have  united  in  or- 
ganizing the  nevAi  Assembly,  embrace  the  new  doctrines> 
Various  reasons  have  operated  to  produce  in  the  minds  of 
some,  so  much  sympathy  for  those  who  maintain  these 
sentiments,  that  they  have  taken  sides  with  theifr,  and 
hence  have  received  their  name,  though  they  disclaim  all 
afhinity  for  their  peculiar  views.  Others  receive  the  new 
jivinity  in  a  modified  form ;  and  a  third  class  adopt  some 
of  its  dogmas,  while  they  reject  otliers.    These  last  re- 


14  Introduction. 


marks  apply  to  some  of  those  from  whose  productions  wc 
design  to  make  extracts  in  the  following  pages. 

How  large  a  proportion  of  the  new  Assembly  embrace 
the  new  theology,  we  will  not  undertake  to  say.  We 
might  state  a  number  of  facts,  which  appear  to  shew  that 
it  is  adopted,  at  least  "for  substance  of  doctrine,"  by  a 
very  considerable  majority.  On  the  contrary,  there  are 
some  who  have  expressed  opposition  to  these  doctrines, 
but  who  have  been  influenced,  it  is  probable,  by  their  local 
situation,  or  their  connections  and  sympathies,  to  join  the 
new  body.  Our  earnest  wish  is,  that  they  may  exert  a 
happy  influence.  We  have  no  malignant  feelings  to  grat- 
ify — but  shall  rejoice  to  know  that  every  error  has  been 
corrected,  every  ground  of  complaint  removed,  and  that 
as  a  body,  they  may  regain -that  christian  confidence,  to 
which  a  few  of  their  number  are  now  so  justly  entitled. 
It  is  to  be  deeply  regretted,  that  in  one  or  two  things,  they 
would  not  pursue  a  different  course.  Twelve  months  ago 
a  committee,  appointed  by  that  party,  consented  to  take 
another  name,  and  to  leave  their  bretliren-of  the  Old  School 
in  the  quiet  possession  of  their  records,  board  of  trustees, 
and  certain  invested  funds.  An  amicable  division  would 
doubtless  have  taken  place  at  that  time,  had  it  not  been 
for  the  fact  that  the  committee  from  the  New  School  party, 
though  they  consented  to  the  aboVe  reasonable  terms,  in- 
sisted upon  such  other  conditions  as  could  not  be  acceded 
to  without  jeoparding  those  very  interests  for  the  secur- 


Introduction.  15 


ing  of  which  a  division  had  become  necessary.  Hence  the 
negotiation  fiiiled.  But  now  they  claim  to  be  the  true 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  have 
appealed  to  the  civil  courts  lo  wrest,  if  possible,  from  the 
hands  of  their  brethren,  what,  they  virtually  acknowledged 
a  year  ago,  does  not  belong  in  equity  to  themselves,  but 
to  those  whom  they  have  thus  assailed.  Such  a  proce- 
dure seems  to  us  grossly  improper,  as  well  as  inconsistent. 
It  is  to  be  hoped,  however,  that  on  farther  reflection,  they 
will  be  induced  lo  retrace  their  steps  and  pursue  a  course 
more  agreeable  to  their  former  professions  and  to  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel. 

But  while  we  do  not  doubt  that  these  suits,  if  prosecu- 
ted, will  be  decided  in  favor  of  the  defendants,  provided 
law  and  justice  do  not  conflict  with  each  other,  we  wish 
to  remind  the  reader  that  the  question,  wdiich  body  is  the 
true  General  Assembly,  does  not  depend  upon  any  deci- 
sion which  is  to  be  made  by  the  civil  courts.  They  can 
decide  who  shall  have  the  funds  ;  but  beyond  this  their 
jurisdiction  does  not  extend.  The  General  Assembly  was 
organized  ten  years  before  they  had  a  board  of  trustees ; 
and  their  organization  was  as  complete  during  that  time 
as  it  was  afterwards.  It  had  then  its  constitution — and 
this  constitution,  be  it  remembered,  makes  the  General 
x\ssembly,  and  not  a  civil  court,  the  body  of  final  resort  in 
all  cases  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  This  board  of  trus- 
tees was  incorporated  for  the  purpose  of  managing  certain 


16  Introduction. 


funds  in  behalf  of  the  Assembly,  and  for  nothing  else.  If 
their  charter  had  been  a  limited  one,  its  expiration  would 
not  have  affected  the  character  of  the  General  Assembly; 
and  if  it  shall  be  taken  away,  the  only  result  which  can  fol- 
low, will  be  to  deprive  them  of  their  funds;  but  as  an  ec- 
clesiastical body,  they  will  remain  unimpaired.  If  they 
were  the  true  General  Assembly  in  1789,  and  for  the  ten 
following  years  before  their  charter  was  obtained,  they  are 
the  true  General  Assembly  now,  whatever  becomes  of  their 
property. 

Though  we  shall  be  gratified  to  have  them  succeed  in 
this  respect,  we  regard  the  result  of  these  suits  as  of  little 
importance  compared  with  other  matters  which  have  been 
involved  in  the  controversy;  but  which  we  trust  are  now 
finally  settled.  In  regard  to  the  question  of  property,  we 
feel  very  much  like  a  native  christian  of  the  South  Sea  Is- 
lands, who  had  lost  his  house  by  fire,  and  who  in  the  act 
of  rushing  into  the  flames  to  secure  a  copy  of  the  New 
Testament,  was  severely  scorched  by  the  conflagration. 
As  the  missionaries  were  condoling  with  him  on  the  loss 
of  his  house,  he  put  his  hand  under  his  garment,  and  tak- 
ing out  the  sacred  treasure  which  he  had  saved,  exclaimed 
with  extacy,  "  True,  I  have  lost  my  property,  but  I  have 
saved  my  gospels!"  We  may  lose  our  property  before 
the  civil  tribunals ;  but  if  we  have  saved  our  "  gospels,"  we 
shall  be  infinite  gainers,  and  ought  therefore  to  "  take  joy- 
fully the  spoiling  of  our  goods."    These  remarks  are  made 


Introduction.  17 


in  view  of  the  prominence  given  in  the  New  School  prints 
to  a  judicial  decision  :  but  we  are  far  from  believing  that 
any  professional  ingenuity  or  legal  skill  will  be  able  to  pro- 
cure such  a  result  as  they  anticipate ;  even  should  they 
venture  to  bring  the  question  to  trial. 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


CHAP,  I. 

The  character  and  government  of  God. 

In  New-England,  the  controversy  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  present  chapter  embraces  some  propo- 
sitions which  have  never  been  much  discussed  in 
the  Presbyterian  church ;  and  concerning  which 
the  great  majority  of  our  ministers,  we  believe, 
have  not  expressed  a  decided  opinion.  We  refer 
to  the  following,  which  we  give  in  the  language 
of  Dr.  Tyler :  "  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary 
to  my  belief,  that  the  existence  of  sin  is  not,  on 
the  whole,  for  the  best ;  and  that  a  greater 
amount  of  good  would  have  been  secured  had  all 
God's  creatures  remained  holy,  than  will  result 
from  the  present  system.'*  Again ;  "  Dr.  Taylor 
maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief,  that  God,  all 
things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin,  in  all  in- 
stances in  which  the  latter  takes  place."  It  has 
been  a  common  sentiment  among  New-England 
divines,  since  the  time  of  Edwards,  "  that  sin  is 
the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good,  and  as 
such,  so  far  as  it  exists,  is  preferable,  on  the  whole, 


20  Theory  of  Leibnitz. 

to  holiness  in  its  stead."  The  sentiment  is  found- 
ed upon  what  has  been  denominated  the  Beltistian 
Theory ;  which,  it  is  said,  was  first  taught  by 
Leibnitz,  about  the  commencement  of  the  last 
century.  This  theor}-  maintains,  that  "  of  all  pos- 
sible systems,  God,  infinitely  wise  and  good,  must 
adopt  that  which  is  best.  The  present  system, 
therefore,  is  preferable  to  every  other ;  and  since 
sin  is  a  part  of  the  system,  "  its  existence  is,  on  the 
whole,  for  the  best."  Not  that  "  sin  must  be  good 
in  itself ^^^  as  Dr.  Taylor  disingenuously  affirms — 
this  is  no  part  of  their  belief — ^but  that  God  will 
so  overrule  it,  for  the  promotion  of  his  glory  and 
tlie  happiness  of  the  universe,  "  that  a  greater 
amount  of  good  will  result  from  the  present  sys- 
tem, than  would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's 
creatures  remained  holy."*  Concerning  the  prin- 
ciple of  Leibnitz,  from  which  these  conclusions 
are  drawn.  Dr.  Witherspoon  remarks:  "This 
scheme  seems  to  me  to  labor  under  two  great 
and  obvious  difficuhies — that  the  infinite  God 
should  set  limits  to  himself,  by  ^the  production  of 
a  created  system — it  brings  creation  a  great  deal 
too  near  the  Creator  to  say  it  is  the  alternative  of 
Omnipotence.      The  other  difficulty  is,  that  it 


*  New-England  optimism,  as  it  is  sometimes  denominated, 
arises  from  the  theory  that  virtue  consists  in  bencA'olence — or 
that  the  tendency  of  hohness  to  produce  happiness,  is  that  which 
gives  it  its  chief  if  not  its  only  excellence. 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Wither  spoon.  21 

seems  to  make  something  which  I  do  not  know 
how  to  express  otherwise  than  by  the  ancient  sto- 
ical fate,  antecedent  and  superior  even  to  God 
himself.  I  would  therefore  think  it  best  to  say, 
with  the  current  of  orthodox  divines,  that  God 
was  perfectly  free  in  his  purpose  and  providence, 
and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  be  sought  for  the 
one  or  the  other  beyond  himself." 

Admitting  then,  that  there  was  no  necessity  on  the 
part  of  the  Creator  to  form  one  particular  system 
rather  than  another,  it  becomes  merely  a  question 
of  fact,  whether  more  good  will  result  to  the  uni- 
verse from  the  existence  of  sin,  all  thmgs  consider- 
ed, than  would  have  been  secured  if  sin  had  never 
been  permitted  ?  To  this  question,  most  of  the 
ministers  in  our  church,  we  are  disposed  to  think, 
would  reply  by  saying  "  We  cannot  tell."  All 
agree  that  "  the  existence  of  sin  under  the  divine 
government  is  a  profound  mystery ;"  and  also 
that  he  will  make  use  of  it  to  display  some  of  his 
illustrious  perfections  ;  and  to  communicate  to  his 
creatures  rich  and  eternal  blessings.  But  wheth- 
er he  might  not  have  formed  a  system,  if  it  had 
been  his  pleasure,  by  which  his  glory  would  have 
been  still  more  displayed,  and  a  still  greater 
amount  of  happiness  secured  to  his  creatures,  it 
is  not  our  province  to  decide.  As  he  has  no 
where  told  us  that  he  has  made  the  best  system 
possible,  and  as  we  cannot  perceive  that  his  infi- 


22  Quotations  from  Dr.  Taylor. 

nite  goodness  required  him  to  do  it,  we  are  dis- 
posed to  leave  the  question  to  be  contemplated 
and  solved,  (if  a  solution  be  desirable)  when  we 
shall  have  the  advantage  of  that  expansion  of 
mind,  that  increase  of  knowledge,  and  that  inter- 
change of  sentiment  with  other  created  beings, 
W'hich  we  shall  enjoy  in  the  heavenly  world. 

But  while  in  regard  to  these  propositions  we 
express  no  opinion,  we  consider  the  reasoning  of 
Dr.  Taylor  in  attempting  to  refute  them  as  in- 
volving pernicious  errors.  It  is  on  this  ac- 
count that  we  have  introduced  the  subject  in 
the  present  volume.  Pressed  wdth  the  diffi- 
culty that  if  sin  under  the  divine  government 
will  not  on  the  whole  be  for  the  best,  why  did 
God  permit  it  ?  He  has  taken  the  bold,  not 
to  say  the  impious  ground,  that  God  did  all  he 
could  to  prevent  the  existence  of  sin,  but  could 
not,  without  infringing  on  the  moral  agency  of 
man — and  that  he  would  make  the  world  holier 
and  happier  now  if  he  could,  without  abridging 
human  liberty. 

His  language  on  this  subject  is  as  follows  :  "  It 
will  not  be  denied  that  free  moral  agents  can  do 
WTong  under  every  possible  influence  to  prevent 
it.  The  possibility  of  a  contradiction  in  supposing 
them  to  be  prevented  from  doing  wTong,  is  there- 
fore demonstrably  certain.     Free  moral  agents 


Quotations  from  Dr.  Taylor.  28 

can  do  wrong  under  all  possible  preventing  intlu- 
cnce."     Ch.  Spec,  Sept.  1830,  p.  563.* 

"But  in  our  view  it  is  a  question  whether  it  is 
not  essential  to  the  honor  of  God  to  suppose  that 
he  has  done  all  he  could  to  secure  the  universal 
holiness  of  his  accountable  creatures ;  and  that 
nevertheless,  some,  in  defiance  of  it,  would  rebel. 
Such  a  proposition  we  think  neither  violates  the 
feelings  of  enlightened  piety,  nor  the  decision  of 
revelation."     Ch.  Spec.  1832,  p.  567. 

"  God  not  only  prefers  on  the  whole  that  his 
creatures  should  forever  perform  their  duties 
rather  than  neglect  them,  but  purposes  on  his 
part  to  do  all  in  his  powder  to  promote  this  object 
in  his  kingdom."     Ch.  Spec.  1832,  p.  660. 

"  It  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that  God  could 
have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the  present  de- 
gree of  sin  in  a  moral  system.  If  holiness  in  a 
moral  system  be  preferable  to  sin  in  its  stead, 
why  did  not  a  benevolent  God,  were  it  possible 
to  him,  prevent  all  sin,  and  secure  the  prevalence 
of  universal  holiness  ?  Would  not  a  moral  uni- 
verse of  perfect  holiness,  and  of  coarse  perfect 
happiness,  be  happier  and  better  than  one  com- 
prising '  sin  and  its  miseries  V     And  must  not  in- 


+  As  I  have  not  all  the  numbers  of  the  Christian  Spectator  in 
my  possession,  1  shall,  in  my  quotations  from  that  work,  make 
free  use  of  a  pamphlet  written  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Dow. 


^4  Quotation  from  Mr,  Finney. 

finite  benevolence  accomplish  all  the  good  he 
can  ?  Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  had  it 
been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things,  have 
secured  the  existence  of  universal  holiness  in  his 
moral  kingdom  ?"     Concio  ad  Clerum. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  publication  of  such 
sentiments  created  alarm  among  the  orthodox 
clergy  of  New-England ;  and  that  speedy  efforts 
were  made  to  arrest  their  progress. 

Unhappily,  they  soon  found  their  way  to  New- 
York,  and  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Finney  and 
others,  obtained  considerable  currency.  Mr  Fin- 
ney's views  will  appear  from  the  following  quota- 
tion. In  reply  to  an  objection  that  as  God  "  is 
almighty,  he  could  prevent  sin  if  he  pleased,"  &lq,. 
he  observes  :  "  To  say  nothing  of  His  word  and 
oath  upon  this  subject,  you  have  only  to  look  into 
His  law  to  see  that  He  has  done  all  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  admitted  to  prevent  the  existence 
of  sin.  The  sanctions  of  His  law  are  absolutely 
infinite  :  in  them  He  has  embodied  and  held  forth 
the  highest  possible  motives  to  obedience.  His 
law  is  moral  and  not  physical ;  a  government  of 
motive  and  not  of  force.  It  is  in  vain  to  talk  of 
His  omnipotence  preventing  sin.  If  infinite  mo- 
tives cannot  prevent  it,  it  cannot  be  prevented  un- 
der a  moral  government,  and  to  maintain  the  con- 
trary is  absurd  and  a  contradiction.  To  adminis- 
ter moral  laws  is  not  the  object  of  physical  power. 


Quotations  from  Mr.  Tyler.  25 

To  maintain,  therefore,  that  the  physical  omnipo- 
tence of  God  can  prevent  sin,  is  to  talk  nonsense." 
Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  58. 

Similar  language  is  employed  by  him  and  oth- 
er writers  of  the  same  school  with  reference  to 
the  power  of  God  to  convert  sinners,  and  to  make 
the  world  holier  and  happier  than  it  now  is.  Mr. 
Edward  R.  Tyler  [not  Dr.  Tyler]  preached  a  ser- 
mon at  New-Haven,  Oct.  1829,  (published  by  re- 
quest,) in  which  occur  the  following  sentences  :* 
"  He  [God]  does  not  prefer  the  present  system 
to  one  which  might  have  presented  itself  to  His 
choice,  had  it  been  possible  to  retain  all  moral  be- 
ings in  obedience  ;  but  prefers  it  to  the  non-exist- 
ence of  a  moral  system,  notwithstanding  sin  is  its 
unavoidable  attendant."  "  The  nature  of  things, 
as  they  now  exist,  forbids,  as  far  as  God  himself  is 
concerned,  the  more  frequent  existence  of  holiness 
in  the  place  of  sin.  How  do  you  know  that  the 
influence  ivhich  He  employs,  even  in  respect  to 
those  who  perish,  is  not  all  which  the  nature  of  the 
case  ad7nits?  How  do  you  know  that  he  can 
maintain  his  moral  government,  or  preserve  mor- 
al agents  in  being  as  such,  and  prevent  sin  ?  Do 
you  not  pass  the  boundaries  of  human  knowledge 
in  saying  that  He  is  able  to  prevent  all  sin,  while 
He  preserves,  unimpaired,  the  freedom  of  account- 


*Mr.  Tyler  was  at  that  time  Pastor  of  the  South  Church  in 
Middletown,  Conn. 

C 


26  Views  of  Prof.  Fitch, 

able  beings  ?  Such  may  be  the  nature  of  free 
agents  that  they  cannot  be  governed  in  a  manner 
to  exclude  sin,  or  to  restrict  it  to  a  smaller  com- 
pass than  it  actually  possesses."  "  Such  is  the  na- 
ture of  free  agents,  that  God  foresaw  He  could 
not  create  them  without  liability  to  err  and  actu- 
al transgression.  He  knew  at  the  same  time,  that 
the  best  possible  system  included  such  beings ; 
that  is,  beings  capable  of  knowing  and  loving  Him. 
He  regretted,  as  He  abundantly  teaches  us  in  His 
word,  that  some  of  those  whom  he  was  about  to 
create  would  sin.  Had  it  been  possible  to  secure 
them  all  in  obedience,  more  happiness  would  have 
been  enjoyed  by  his  creatures,  and  equal  glory 
would  have  surrounded  His  own  throne.  But  al- 
though the  system  which  He  saw  to  be  best,  could 
not  be  realized  in  consequence  of  the  anticipated 
perversion  of  moral  agency,  He  perceived  that  a 
system  such  as  he  has  adopted,  notwithstanding 
the  evil  attending  it,  to  be  preferable  to  any  which 
should  exclude  moral  beings."  "It  is  to  Him  a 
subject  of  regret  and  grief,  yet  men  transgress  ; 
they  rebel  in  spite  of  His  wishes  ;  thei/  persevere 
in  sin  in  spite  of  all  ichich  He  can  do  to  reclaim 
them" 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator  [believed  to 
be  Prof  Fitch,]  advances  the  same  ideas.  "  What- 
ever degree  or  kind  of  influence"  says  he,  "  is  used 
with  them,  to  fav^or  their  return  to  him,  at  any 
given  time,  is  as  strongly  fawrahle  to  their  con- 


Remark  of  Mr,  Beecher.  27 

version  as  it  can  he  made  amid  the  obstacles  ivhich 
a  world  of  guilty  and  rebellious  moral  agents  op- 
pose to  God's  icorks  of  grace.''  Review  of  Dr. 
Fiske's  Discourse  on  Predestination  and  Election. 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments,  it  was  not 
uncommon  a  few  years  ago  in  some  parts  of  New- 
York,  to  hear  from  the  pulpit  and  in  the  lecture 
room,  that  God  is  doing  all  He  can  to  convert  and 
save  sinners-^that  if  He  could,  He  would  convert 
many  more  than  He  does — that  He  converts  as 
many  as  He  can  persuade  to  yield  their  hearts  to 
Him — and  other  expressions  to  the  same  effect. 
Of  very  similar  import  is  the  remark  attributed  to 
a  son  of  Dr.  Beecher,  which,  according  to  the 
Hartford  Christian  Watcnman,  was  one  C^J^C  C? 
Dr.  Porter's  anxiety  in  relation  to  the  father — it 
having  been  reported  that  he  approved  of  the  sen- 
timent, viz.  "  that  though  God  is  physically  om- 
nipotent. He  has  not  acquired  moral  power  enough 
to  govern  the  universe  according  to  his  will." 

How  different  these  statements  are  from  the  old 
theology,  will  appear  by  a  reference  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith ;  which  teaches  that  God  "  hath 
most  sovereign  dominion  over  his  creatures,  to  do 
by  them,  for  them,  and  upon  them,  whatsoever 
Himself  pleaseth" — that  He  is  "  Almighty,  most 
absolute,  working  all  things  according  to  the  coun- 
sel of  His  own  immutable  and  most  righteous  will, 
for  his  own  glory."    They  are  equally  at  variance 


28  God^s  happiness  diminisTiecL 


with  the  word  of  God,  which  declares  that  «  He 
doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army  of  Heaven^ 
and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth ;  and  none 
can  stay  His  hand,  or  say  unto  Him,  what  doest 
Thou?" 

The  positions  assumed  by  Dr.  Taylor  and  oth- 
ers, besides  being  unscriptural,  are  believed  by 
many  to  involve  principles  which  are  subversive 
of  some  important  Scripture  doctrines.  They 
place  such  limits  upon  the  power  oi  God,  as  to  be 
a  virtual  denial  of  his  omnipotence.  They  make 
Him  so  dependent  upon  His  creatures  as  to  ren- 
der him  liable  to  disappointment,  and  consequent- 
ly to  a  dimunition  of  His  happiness.  Dr.  Tay- 
!cr,  Cr  one  of  his  friends,  admits  that  His  blessed- 
ness has  been  diminished  by  the  existence  of  sin. 
«  It  is  admitted  that  what  men  have  done  to  im- 
pair the  blessedness  of  God  by  sin,  has  not  failed 
of  its  results  ia  the  actual  diminution  of  His 
blessedness,  compared  with  what  it  had  been,  had 
they  obeyed  his  perfect  lav//'— Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims, vol.  5,  p.  693.  Mr.  Tyler,  who  has  just 
been  referred  to,  makes  the  same  admission. 
"  This  doctrine,"  he  remarks,  "  is  said  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  happiness  of  God.  And  we  ad-^ 
mit,  that  as  far  as  his  happiness  is  affected  by  the 
conduct  of  his  creatures,  he  would  have  been  bet- 
ter pleased  had  angels  and  men  always  remained 
steadfast  in  his  fear  and  service." 


Decrees  and  Election  denied.  29 

They  involve  a  denial  of  the  Divine  decrees — 
for  if  God  does  not  possess  such  absolute  control 
over  his  creatures  that  he  can  govern  them  ac- 
cording to  his  pleasure,  how  could  he  have  decreed 
any  thing  unconditionally  concerning  them,  since 
it  might  happen,  that  in  the  exercise  of  their  free 
agency,  they  would  act  contrary  to  the  Divine 
purpose  ?  On  the  same  principle  they  virtually 
reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  and 
make  election  depend  upon  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  and  the  will  of  the  creature.  This  is  ac- 
tually the  way  in  which  Mr.  Finney  explains  the 
doctrine.  "  The  elect,  then,"  says  he,  "  must  be 
those  whom  God  foresaw  could  be  converted  un- 
der the  wisest  administration  of  His  government. 
That  administering  it  in  a  way  that  would  be 
most  beneficial  to  all  worlds,  exerting  such  an 
amount  of  moral  influence  on  eveiy  individual  as 
would  result,  upon  the  whole,  in  the  greatest  good 
to  His  divine  kingdom,  He  foresaw  that  certain  in- 
dividuals could,  with  this  wisest  amount  of  moral 
influence,  be  reclaimed  and  sanctified,  and  for  this 
reason,  they  were  chosen  to  eternal  Hfe."  "  The 
elect  were  chosen  to  eternal  hfe,  because  God 
foresaw  that  in  the  perfect  exercise  of  their  free- 
dom they  could  be  induced  to  repent  and  embrace 
the  Gospel."  "  In  choosing  His  elect,  you  must 
understand  that  he  has  thrown  the  responsibility 
of  their  being  saved  upon  them ;  that  the  whole 


30  Denial  of  Saints'  perseverance, 

is  suspended  upon  their  consent  to  the  terms ;  you 
are  perfectly  able  to  give  your  consent,  and  this 
moment  to  lay  hold  on  eternal  life.  Irrespective 
of  your  own  choice,  no  election  can  save  you,  and 
no  reprobation  can  damn  you." — Sermons  on  Im- 
portant Subjects,  p.  2^24,  25,  29,  33.  Mr.  Tyler, 
from  whose  sermon  we  have  already  quoted, 
gives  the  same  explanation  of  this  doctrine,  or,  m 
other  words,,  virtually  denies  it.  "  God  foresees," 
he  observes,  '"'  whom  he  can  make  willing  in  the 
day  of  his  power,  and  resolves  that  they  shall  be 
saved,"  Prof.  Fitch  also  advances  the  same  idea 
in  his  review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  discourse  on  Predesti- 
nation and  Election,  in  the  Christian  Spectator. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made,  substantially, 
concerning  the  saints'  perseverance,  and  even 
their  stabihty  in  Heaven,  If  the  free  will  of  sin- 
ners may  effectually  resist  all  the  influence  w^hich 
God  can  use  for  their  conversion,  why  may  not 
the  free  will  of  christians,  under  the  counter  influ- 
ence of  temptation,  break  through  all  the  moral 
influences  which  God  can  bring  to  bear  upon 
them,  and  thus  completely  and  eternally  fall  away? 
And  if  so,  why  may  not  the  same  catastrophe  be- 
fall them  after  they  arrive  at  Heaven  1  To  bor- 
row the  language  of  Dr.  Tyler :  "  If  His  creatures 
are  so  independent  of  Him  that  He  cannot  con- 
trol them  at  pleasure,  what  assurance  can  He  give 
us  that  every  saint  and  every  angel  will  not  yet 


Possibility  of  falling  in  Heaven.  31 

apostatize  and  spread  desolation  through  the  mor- 
al universe." 

As  horrible  as  this  thought  is,  it  appears  to  be  a 
legitimate  consequence  from  the  reasoning  of  the 
New-Haven  divines.  "  But  this  possibility  that 
moral  agents  will  sin,  remains  (suppose  what  else 
you  will)  so  long  as  moral  agency  remains ;  and 
how  can  it  be  proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be, 
when,  for  aught  that  appears,  it  may  be  ?  When 
in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  case  it 
remains  true  that  it  may  be,  what  evidence  or 
proof  can  exist  that  it  will  not  be  ?" — Ch.  Spec. 
1830,  p.  563.  Again  :  "  We  know  that  a  moral 
system  necessarily  implies  the  existence  of  free 
agents,  w  ith  the  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  op- 
posing power.  This  fact  sets  human  reason  at  de- 
fiance in  every  attempt  to  prove  that  some  of  these 
agents  will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." 
Ch.  Spec.  1831,  p.  617.  If,  then,  the  saints  and 
angels  in  Heaven  are  ^^free  agents ,"  they  have, 
according  to  the  above  reasoning,  "  the  power  to 
act  in  despite  of  all  opposing  power,"  and  it  cannot 
be  proved  "  that  some  of  these  agents  will  not  use 
that  power  and  actually  sin." 

On  this  subject  we  will  quote  some  pertinent 
remarks  from  "  Views  in  Theology,"  a  periodical 
published  in  New-York.  "  It  is  as  true  of  angels 
and  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,  that  they 
are  moral  agents,  and  that  their  powers  are  the 


32  Remarks  from  a  Periodical. 

same  in  kind  that  are  known  to  originate  sin,  as 
it  is  of  us  ;  as  clear  that  if  God  "  should  begin  and 
pursue  any  method  of  providence  and  govern- 
ment" over  them,  "  the  causes  which  originate  sin 
would  still  exist  in  kind,  under  his  providence,"  as 
it  is,  that  they  would  among  men  ;  and  "  since  un- 
der any  system  of  Providence,  the  condition  of 
His  creatures  must  be  constantly  changing  ;"  as 
clear,  therefore — if  the  powers  of  moral  agency 
alone  be  considered — "  that  among  these  fluctua- 
tions, there  may  arise  conjunctures  under  any 
providence,  in  which  temptations  will  rise  and 
prevail  to  the  overthrow  of  some  of  those  crea- 
tures," as  it  is  that  they  may,  under  any  provi- 
dence, over  such  beings  as  ourselves. 

On  the  principles  then,  on  w^hich  his  reasoning 
proceeds,  we  not  only  have  no  certainty  of  the 
continued  obedience  of  holy,  angelic,  and  redeem- 
ed spirits,  but  have  an  absolute  probability  of  their 
universally  yielding  to  rebellion  at  some  period  of 
their  existence,  notwithstanding  every  species  and 
degree  of  preventing  influence  that  God  can  ex- 
ert over  them !" 

To  these,  we  will  add  the  following  from  Dr. 
Griffin  :  "  If  God  could  not  have  prevented  sin  in 
all  worlds  and  ages,  he  cannot  prevent  sin  in  any 
world  or  age,  or  in  any  creature  at  any  time,  ex- 
cept by  preventing  the  particular  occasion  and 
temptation.     If  God  could  not  have  prevented  sin 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Griffin.  33 

in  the  universe,  he  cannot  prevent  believers  from 
fatally  falling ;  He  cannot  prevent  Gabriel  and 
Paul  from  sinking  at  once  into  devils,  and  Heaven 
from  turning  into  a  Hell.  And  were  he  to  create 
new  races  to  fill  the  vacant  seats,  they  might  turn 
to  devils  as  fast  as  He  created  them,  in  spite  of 
any  thing  that  He  could  do  short  of  destroying 
their  moral  agency.  He  is  liable  to  be  defeated 
in  all  His  designs,  and  to  be  as  miserable  as  He  is 
benevolent.  This  is  infinitely  the  gloomiest  idea 
that  was  ever  thrown  upon  the  world.  It  is 
gloomier  than  Hell  itself.  For  this  involves  only 
the  destruction  of  a  part,  but  that  involves  the 
wretchedness  of  God  and  His  whole  creation. 
And  how  awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the  prog- 
pects  of  individual  believers.  You  have  no  secu- 
rity that  you  shall  stand  an  hour.  And  even  if 
you  get  to  Heaven,  you  have  no  certainty  of  re- 
maining there  a  day.  All  is  doubt  and  sepul- 
chral gloom.  And  where  is  the  glory  of  God  ? 
Where  the  transcendant  glory  of  raising  to  spiritu- 
al life  a  world  dead  in  trespasses  and  sin  ?  Where 
the  glory  of  swaying  an  undivided  sceptre,  and 
doing  His  whole  pleasure  "  in  the  army  of  Heav- 
en and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  ?" — - 
Grifl[in  on  Divine  Efficiency,  p.  180,  181. 

The  practical  influence  of  these  assumptions 
is  believed  to  be  no  less  objectionable  than  their 
tendencies  to  error. 


34         Practical  effects  of  the  New  Views. 

1.  In  relation  to  prayer.  If  we  adopt  the 
principle  that  God  has  not  supreme  control  over 
the  hearts  of  all  men,  how  can  we  with  confi- 
dence plead  the  fulfilment  of  those  promises 
which  are  to  be  accomplished  by  the  instrumen- 
tality of  his  creatures  ?  However  willing  he  may 
be  to  answer  our  prayers,  there  may  be  found 
among  the  various  agents  to  be  employed,  some 
Pharoah,  so  much  more  obstinate  than  the  king 
of  Egypt,  that  no  influence  which  God  can  em- 
ploy, will  incline  him  to  let  his  people  go — or 
some  Ahithophel,  so  much  more  sagacious  and  in- 
fluential than  the  counsellor  of  Absalom,  that  the 
Lord  will  not  be  able  to  "turn  his  counsel  to 
foolishness,"  and  brin^  back  his  own  anointed  to 
the  throne  of  Israel. 

2.  If  we  believe  ourselves  so  independent  of 
God,  that  we  can  successfully  resist  any  moral 
influence  which  he  can  bring  to  bear  upon  our 
minds,  how  feeble  will  be  the  incentives  to  the 
exercise  of  humility  !  Tell  a  carnal,  unregene- 
rate  man,  that  though  God  had  physical  power  to 
create  him,  he  has  not  moral  power  to  govern 
him,  and  you  could  not  furnish  his  mind  with  bet- 
ter aliment  for  pride  and  rebellion.  Should  you, 
after  giving  this  lesson,  press  upon  him  the  claims 
of  Jehovah,  you  might  expect  to  be  answered,  as 
Moses  was  by  the  proud  oppressor  of  Israel : 
"  Who  is  the  Lord,  that  I  should  obey  his  voice  ?" 


Practical  effects  of  the  New  Vieivs.         85 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  submis- 
sion. Of  this,  the  case  just  referred  to  affords 
an  ample  illustration.  What  a  miserable  reflec- 
tion it  would  have  been  to  present  to  an  enslaved 
Israelite,  that  he  ought  to  submit  cheerfully  to 
his  bondage,  because  it  was  not  in  the  power  of 
the  Lord  to  prevent  it !  Men  are  free  agents  : 
in  the  exercise  of  that  agency,  your  ancestors 
would  settle  themselves  in  Egypt — and  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  same  agency,  the  Egyptians  loould 
enslave  them !  God  knew  that  such  would  be 
the  result,  and  he  would  have  have  hindered  it  if 
he  could,  but  could  not,  without  destroying  their 
free  agency  !  "  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong 
under  every  possible  influence  to  prevent  it." 

4.  Such  reflections  afford  as  little  foundation 
for  gratitude  as  for  submission.  Why  do  we  feel 
grateful  to  God  for  those  favors  which  are  con- 
ferred upon  us  by  the  agency  of  our  fellow  men, 
except  on  the  principle  that  they  are  only  instru- 
ments in  His  hand — who,  without  "  offering  the 
least  violence  to  their  wills,  or  taking  away  the 
liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes,"  "  hath 
most  sovereign  dominion  over  them,  to  do  by 
them,  for  them,  and  upon  them,  whatsoever  Him- 
self pleaseth."  On  any  other  ground,  they  would 
be  worthy  of  the  principal,  and  He  only  of  sec- 
ondary praise. 

In  conclusion,  we  will  observe,  (adopting  the 
language  of  the  "Views  in  Theology,"  already 


S6         Difference  not  imaginary  hut  real. 

referred  to,)  "  The  great  questions  involved  in 
this  controversy,  it  is  sufficiently  apparent  from 
the  foregoing  discussion,  are  not  of  mere  ordina- 
ry interest,  but  vitally  important :  and  the  decisions 
that  are  formed  respecting  them  by  the  teachers 
of  religion,  must  exert  a  momentous  influence  on 
the  churches  and  religion  of  our  country.  The 
subjects  to  vi^hich  they  relate — the  attributes  of 
God,  the  reality  and  nature  of  his  government, 
the  doctrines  of  his  word,  the  nature  of  the  mind, 
the  laws  of  its  agency,  the  causes  that  influence 
it — if  any  are  entitled  to  that  rank,  are  fundamen- 
tal :  and  the  problems  which  it  is  the  object  of 
the  controversy  to  solve,  whether  God  is  almighty 
as  a  moral  and  providential  ruler  as  well  as 
creator,  or  weak  and  hable  to  perpetual  frustra- 
tion ;  w^iether  he  is  wholly  able,  or  wholly  una- 
ble to  prevent  moral  beings  from  sinning ;  wheth- 
er he  can  or  cannot  determine  and  foresee  the 
events  of  their  agency,  and  thence  whether  his 
predictions,  threatenings  and  promises  are  true 
or  false — indisputably  involve  all  that  is  essential . 
in  Christianity ;  and  the  scheme  which  affirms 
the  one  is  as  diverse  from  that  which  asserts  the 
other,  as  light  is  from  darkness,  and  truth  from 
falsehood."  "  Thej  question  between  them,  is 
nothing  less  than  the  question — of  two  wholly 
dissimilar  and  contradictory  systems,  which  is  it 
that  is  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  which 
therefore  is  it  that  wholly  contradicts  and  sub- 
verts the  gospel  ?" 


CHAP.  II. 

God's  covenant  with  Adam,  and  our  relation  to  him  as  our 
federal  head — involving  the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  orig- 
inal  sin. 

According  to  Witsius,  "  A  covenant  of  God 
with  man  is   an   agreement  between  God   and 
man,  about  the  method  of  obtaining  consummate 
happiness,  with  the  addition  of  a  threatening  of 
eternal  destruction,  with  which  the  despiser  of 
the  happiness  offered  in  that  way  is  to  be  punish- 
ed."    Such  a  covenant  God  made   with  Adam 
before  the  fall ;  and  through  him  with  all  his  pos- 
terity— he  acting  as  their  federal  head  and  repre- 
sentative.    "  The  first  covenant  made  with  man, 
"  says  our  Confession  of  Faith,"  was  a  covenant 
of  works,  wherein  life  was  promised  to  Adam, 
and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of 
perfect  and  personal  obedience" — (as  our  cate- 
chism adds,)  "  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge   of  good   and  evil  upon   pain  of 
death."     This   has  been  the  common  sentiment 
among  the  reformed  churches  since  the  time  of 
Luther  and  Calvin.     It  also  formed  a  part  of  the 
creed  of  the  early  christian  Fathers. 

Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  doctrine,  are  the 
following : 


38  Covenant  with  Adam, 

1.  The  law  given  to  Adam,  in  Gen.  ii.  16,  17, 
contained  all  the  essential  properties  of  a  cove- 
nant ;  viz.  parties,  a  condition,  a  penalty,  and  an 
implied  promise.  It  is  not  essential  to  a  cove- 
nant that  the  parties  should  be  equal — nor  was  it 
necessary  in  the  present  case,  that  Adam  should 
give  a  formal  consent  to  the  terms  proposed  ;  be- 
cause they  were  binding  upon  him  as  a  creature 
of  God,  independent  of  his  consent.  But  inas- 
much as  he  was  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
and  had  his  law  written  in  his  heart,  there  was 
undoubtedly  a  cordial  assent  to  the  proposed 
condition. 

2.  Thai  transaction  is  referred  to  by  the 
prophet  Hosea,  under  the  name  of  a  covenant. 
"But  they  like  men  [Ileb.  like  Adam,]  have 
transgressed  the  covenant."  Hosea  vi.  7.  Upon 
this  passage  Henry  remarks,  "  Herein  they  trod 
in  the  steps  of  our  first  parents  ;  they,  like  Adam, 
have  transgressed  the  covenant ;  (so  it  might  very 
well  be  read ;)  as  he  transgressed  the  covenant 
of  innocency,  so  they  transgressed  the  covenant 
of  grace  ;  so  treacherously,  so  foolishly ;  there  in 
paradise,  he  violated  his  engagements  to  God ; 
and  there  in  Canaan,  another  paradise,  they  vio- 
lated their  engagements.  And  by  their  treacher- 
ous dealing  they,  like  Adam,  have  ruined  them- 
selves and  theirs."  This  text  has  no  definite 
sense,  unless  it  refers  to  Adam. 


Adam  our  Federal  Head.  39 

3.  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  given  "for  a 
covenant  of  the  people  ;"  (Isa.  xlii,  6,)  and  since 
a  parallel  is  dravrn  by  the  apostle  between  Christ 
and  Adam  ;  the  latter  being  called  the  first,  and 
the  former  the  second  Adam ;  the  analogy  re- 
quires us  to  regard  the  first  Adam,  as  a  party  to 
a  covenant. 

The  representative  character  of  Adam  may  be 
proved  by  the  following  considerations.  All  the 
dispensations  of  Jehovah  concerning  Adam  be- 
fore the  fall,  respected  his  posterity  as  well  as 
himself;  such  as  dominion  over  the  creatures, 
liberty  to  eat  of  the  productions  of  the  earth,  the 
law  of  marriage,  &c.  When  God  made  this 
covenant  with  Adam,  it  does  not  appear  that  Eve 
was  yet  formed — and  yet  it  is  manifest  from  her 
reply  to  the  tempter,  (Gen.  iii.  2,  3,)  that  she 
considered  herself  as  included  in  the  transaction. 
The  consequences  of  Adam's  transgression  affect- 
ed his  posterity  as  well  as  himself.  Gen.  iii.  16, 
19;  Rom.  V.  12;  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  The  apostle 
draws  a  parallel  between  Christ  and  Adam ;  in 
which  he  describes  Christ  as  the  representative 
of  his  spiritual  seed,  as  Adam  was  of  his  natural 
seed.  Rom.  v.  12, 19  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  But  how 
did  Christ  represent  his  seed  except  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  ?  Adam,  therefore,  must  have  re- 
presented his  in  the  covenant  of  works. 


40  Imputation  and  Original  Sin. 

That  covenant  made  with  Adam  and  througb 
him  with  his  posterity,  involves  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  and  original  sin.  Destroy  that  and 
you  destroy  these — they  must  stand  or  fall  togeth- 
er. And  as  they  are  both  based  upon  the  same 
covenant,  so  they  are  closely  connected  with 
each  other.  "  So  far  as  I  know,"  says  President 
Edwards,  "  most  of  those  who  hold  one  of  these 
have  maintained  the  other ;  and  most  of  those 
who  have  opposed  one  have  opposed  the  other. 
And  it  may  perhaps  appear  in  our  future  consid- 
eration of  the  subject,  that  they  are  closely  con- 
nected, and  that  the  arguments  which  prove  the 
one,  estabhsh  the  other,  and  that  there  are  no 
more  difficulties  attending  the  allowing  of  one 
tlian  the  other." 

Upon  these  points  the  confession  of  faith  teach- 
es, that  our  first  parents  "  being  the  root  of  all 
mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  [eating  the  forbidden 
fruit]  w  as  imputed,  and  the  sajne  death  in  sin  and 
corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity, 
descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation" — 
and  that  "  from  this  original  corruption,  whereby 
we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  op- 
posite to  all  good,  and  wholly  inchned  to  all  evil> 
do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions."  The  phrase 
"  root  of  all  m^ankind,"  it  is  evident  from  the  proof 
texts,  refers  not  merely  to  natural  relation,  but  al- 
so to  covenant  headship  ;   the  latter  being  the 


Original  Sin — Edwards'  definition.         41 

principal  foundation  upon  which  the  guilt  of  Ad- 
am's first  sin  is  imputed  to  us ;  while  the  former 
is  the  channel  through  which  our  corrupted  na- 
ture is  conveyed.  "  Original  sin  is  conveyed  from 
our  first  parents  unto  their  posterity  by  natural 
generation,  so  as  all  that  proceed  from  them  in 
that  way,  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin."  Larger 
Catechism.  Imputation  regards  us  as  being  re- 
sponsible in  law,  for  what  Adam  did  as  our  rep- 
resentative— and  as  a  punishment  for  his  sin,  our 
original  righteousness  was  lost,  and  we  are  born 
with  a  corrupt  disposition.  This  is  what  is  meant 
by  original  sin. 

As  President  Edwards  is  often  referred  to  as  a 
standard  author  on  these  points  we  will  quote  a 
few  sentences  from  his  work  on  original  sin.  "  By 
original  sin,  says  he,  as  the  phrase  has  been  most 
commonly  used  by  divines,  is  meant  the  innate 
sinful  depravity  of  the  heart.  But  yet,  when  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vulgarly 
understood  in  that  latitude,  as  to  include  not 
only  the  depravity  of  nature,  but  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  first  sin ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  liahle- 
ness  or  exposedness  of  Adam's  posterity  in  the 
divine  judgment,  to  partake  of  ih^  punishment  of 
that  sin." 

By  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  then,  accord- 
ing to  President  Edwards,  is  meant  liability  to 
punishment  on  account  of  his  sin — and  by  origin- 


42       Imputation —  Views  of  Prof.  Hodge. 

al  sin,  the  inherent  depravity  of  our  nature.  Thi& 
we  beheve  is  in  exact  accordance  with  our  stand- 
ards, as  they  are  understood  by  our  most  approv- 
ed commentators. 

Professor  Hodge,  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Romans,  observes,  "  This  doctrine  [of  imputation] 
does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious  identity 
of  Adam  and  his  race  ;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of 
the  moral  tm-pitude  of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It 
does  not  teach  that  his  offence  was  personally  or 
properly  the  sin  of  all  men,  or  that  his  act  was, 
in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of  his  posterity. 
"  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us  of 
remorse."  "  This  doctrine  merely  teaches  that  in 
virtue  of  the  union  representative  and  natural,  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity ,  his  sin  is  the  ground 
of  their  condemnation,  that  is  of  their  subjection 
to  penal  evils.^  In  reference  to  original  sin,  he 
says, "  it  is  not,  however,  the  doctrine  of  the  scrip- 
tures, nor  of  the  reformed  churches,  nor  of  our 
standards,  that  the  corruption  of  nature  of  which 
they  speak,  is  any  deprivation  of  the  soul,  or  an  es- 
sential attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  positive  evil. 
"  These  confessions  [of  the  reformers]  teach  that 
original  righteousness  was  lost,  and  by  that  de- 
fect the  tendency  to  sin,  or  corrupt  disposition,  ov 
corruption  of  nature,  is  occasioned.  Though  they 
speak  of  original  sin  as  being  first  negative,  i.  e. 
Ihe  loss  of  righteousness ;  and  secondly,  positive,  or 


New  School  Theory.  43 

corruption  of  nature  ;  yet  by  the  latter,  they  state, 
is  to  be  understood,  not  the  infusion  of  any  thing 
in  itself  sinful,  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposi- 
tion to  evil  resulting  from  the  loss  of  righteous- 
ness." As  some  of  the  strongest  objections  to 
these  doctrines  arise  either  from  misunderstand- 
ing or  misrepresenting  them,  the  only  answer 
which  is  necessary  in  many  instances,  is,  to  shew 
that  the  doctrines  as  held  by  those  who  embrace 
them,  are  not  what  the  objector  supposes.  The 
above  quotations  will  serve  to  shew  what  are  the 
true  doctrines  on  this  subject.  Some  of  the 
proofs  by  which  they  are  substantiated,  together 
with  such  remarks  as  may  occur  to  us,  will  be 
reserved  for  a  subsequent  chapter.* 

We  will  now  state  with  as  much  accuracy  as 
we  are  capable,  what  we  understand  to  be  the 
New  School  doctrines  in  reference  to  this  subject. 
According  to  the  New  Theology,  there  was  not  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  word  any  covenant  made 
with  Adam,  but  he  was  merely  placed  under  a 


*  To  any  one  who  desires  particular  information  on  these 
points,  we  recommend  the  commentary  of  Prof.  Hodge,  from 
which  we  have  just  quoted.  There  is  no  work  within  my 
knowledge,  which  to  me  is  so  clear  and  satisfactory  in  its  state- 
ments and  reasonings  on  this  subject;  and  I  believe  it  ex- 
presses the  views  which  are  generally  entertained  by  those 
who  are  denominated  the  "  old  school,^^  or  "  orthodox"  portioa 
of  the  Presbyterian  church. 


44  New  School  Theory. 

law.  He  was  not  the  federal  head  or  represen- 
tative of  his  posterity,  but  only  their  natural  pa- 
rent. Though  as  his  descend ents,  we  feel  the 
effects  of  his  sin,  and  become  sinful  ourselves  in 
consequence  of  it,  the  doctrine  that  his  sin  was 
imputed  to  us  is  unjust  and  absurd.  All  sin  and 
holiness  consist  in  acts.  To  speak  of  a  sinful  or 
holy  nature,  (except  in  a  figurative  sense)  is, 
therefore,  absurd.  When  Adam  was  created  he 
was  neither  sinful  nor  holy,  but  he  acquired  a  ho- 
ly character  by  the  performance  of  holy  acts,  i.  e. 
by  choosing  God  as  his  supreme  good,  and  plac- 
ing his  affections  upon  him.  Jesus  Christ,  though 
called  holy  at  his  birth,  was  so  merely  in  the 
sense  of  dedicated,  and  not  as  possessing  (morally 
considered)  a  holy  nature.  When  we  are  born 
we  possess  no  moral  character  any  more  than 
brutes,  but  we  acquire  a  moral  character  as  soon 
as  we  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  put  forth  moral 
acts.  In  the  sense  in  which  it  has  been  commonly 
understood,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin, 
there  being  no  other  original  sin  than  the  first 
sin  a  child  commits  after  arriving  at  moral  agen- 
cy. Children  are  born  with  the  same  nature  as 
Adam  possessed  at  his  creation — and  the  differ- 
ence between  us  and  him  is,  that  we  are  born  in 
different  circumstances  ;  and  that  the  inferior 
powers  of  our  nature  have  obtained  greater  rela- 
tive strength  ;  from  which  it  universally  results 


New  School  writers  still  use  old  terms.      45 

as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  our  first  acts  are  sinful, 
instead  of  being  holy  as  his  were  ;  i.  e.  we  do  not 
choose  God  as  the  object  of  our  supreme  affec- 
tion, but  the  world — and  this  choice  of  the  world 
as  our  chief  good  is  what  constitutes  human  de- 
pravity. 

Before  referring  to  our  authorities,  we  wish  to 
observe  that  those  who  hold  either  wholly  or  in 
part  to  the  above  doctrines,  have  not  entirely 
laid  aside  the  use  of  the  terms,  covenant,  imputa- 
tion, original  sin,  &c. — but  they  employ  them  in 
a  different  sense  from  that  which  has  been  gener- 
ally attached  to  them  by  Calvinistic  writers. 

Mr.  Finney,  for  example,  uses  the  term  cove- 
nant, in  regard  to  the  transaction  between  God 
and  Adam ;  and  yet  he  denies  that  Adam  was 
the  federal  head  of  his  posterity.  His  doctrine 
appears  to  be,  that  all  mankind  were  placed  pro- 
spectively under  the  covenant  of  works,  and 
were  to  have  a  trial  or  probation,  each  one  for 
himself,  similar  to  what  Adam  had ;  and  that 
from  their  connection  with  him  as  their  natural 
parent,  it  so  happens  that  they  all  break  the  cov- 
enant as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and 
thus  become  sinners.  His  language  is,  "  I  sup- 
pose that  mankind  were  originally  all  under  a 
covenant  of  works,  and  that  Adam  was  not  so 
their  head  or  representative,  that  his  obedience 
or  disobedience  involved  them  in'esistably  in  sin 


46      New  School  writers  still  use  old  terms. 

and  condemnation,  irrespective  of  their  own  acts." 
Lectures  to  Professing  Christians,  p.  286.  Take 
these  words  in  connection  with  what  precedes, 
and  their  import  will  be  more  obvious.  "  It  has 
been  supposed  by  many,  says  he,  that  there  was  a 
covenant  made  with  Adam  such  as  this,  that  if  he 
continued  to  obey  the  law  for  a  limited  period, 
all  his  posterity  should  be  confirmed  in  holiness 
and  happiness  forever.  What  the  reason  is  for  this 
belief,  I  am  unable  to  ascertain :  I  am  not  aware 
that  the  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bible."  Here 
he  alludes  in  direct  terms  to  the  common  doc- 
trine, and  expresses  his  dissent  from  it.  But  what 
does  he  hold  ?  "  Adam  says  he  was  the  natural 
head  of  the  human  race,  and  his  sin  has  involved 
them  in  its  consequences  ;  but  not  on  the  princi- 
ple that  his  sin  Is  literally  accounted  their  sin." 
[  Qucere :  Who  does  maintain  this  opinion  ?]  "  The 
truth,  he  adds,  is  simply  this:  that  from  the  relation 
in  which  he  stood  as  their  natural  head,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  his  sin  has  resulted  in  the  sin  and  ruin  of 
his  posterity."  Then  follows  w^hat  we  first  quo- 
ted. Thus  it  appears  that  though  he  employs  the 
term  covenant  of  works,  he  rejects  the  doctrine 
which  is  generally  entertained  by  those  who  use 
them.  He  intends  one  thing  by  them,  and  they 
another. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  seventh  edition  of  his  Notes 
on  the  Romans,  (p.  128,)  uses  the  word  impute, 


New  School  writers  still  use  old  terms.      47 

in  reference  to  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  siri ; 
though  by  a,  comparison  between  his  remarks 
here  and  some  which  are  found  in  other  parts  of 
the  book,  it  is  evident  he  attaches  a  different 
meaning  to  the  word,  from  what  is  common 
among  Calvinistic  writers.  He  says,  (p.  95,)  "  I 
have  examined  all  the  passages"  where  the  word 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  and  as  the  result 
of  my  examination,  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  word  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  reckoning  or  imputing  to  a  man  that 
which  does  not  strictly  belong  to  him ;  or  of 
charging  on  him  that  w^hich  ought  not  to  be 
charged  on  him  as  a  matter  of  personal  right. 
The  word  is  never  used  to  denote  imputing  in  the 
sense  of  transferring,  or  of  charging  that  on  one 
which  does  not  properly  belong  to  him.  The 
same  is  the  case  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
word  occurs  about  forty  times,  and  in  a  similar 
signification.  No  doctrine  of  transferring,  or  of 
setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not  properly  be- 
long to  him,  be  it  sin  or  holiness,  can  be  derived, 
therefore,  from  this  word." 

The  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  Adam's 
sin  is  no  part  of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  its  advo- 
cates— but  this  is  not  what  Mr.  Barnes  intends 
to  deny  ;  because  he  expressly  informs  us  that 
by  transferring  he  means  "  setting  over  to  a  man 
what  does  not  properly  belong  to  him."     The 


48        Extract  from  Turretin  and  Owen. 


word  impute,  then,  according  to  him,  is  never  used 
in  the  sense  of  "  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does 
not  properly  belong  to  him"— i.  e.  what  "ought 
not  to  be  charged  on  him  as  a  matter  o(  personal 
right"  Nor  is  this  doctrine  taught  in  any  of 
these  passages.  How  different  is  this  from  the 
language  of  Turretin  and  Owen,  as  quoted  by 
Professor  Hodge.  "  Imputation,  says  the  former, 
is  either  o{  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  some- 
thing properly  our  own.  Sometimes  that  is  im- 
puted to  us  which  is  personally  ours  ;  in  which 
sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  without 
us  and  not  performed  by  ourselves ;  thus  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be  imputed  to 
us  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  although  he 
Us  neither  sin  in  himself  nor  we  righteousness. 
Here  we  speak  of  the  latter  kind  of  imputation, 
not  the  former,  because  we  are  talking  of  a  srn 

committed  by  Adam,  not  by  us The 

foundation,  therefore,  of  imputation,  is  not  only 
the  natural  connection  wliich  exists  between  us 
and  Adam,  since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sms  might 
be  imputed  to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  fed- 
eral in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into  cove- 
nant with  him  as  our  head."  Owen  says, 
"  Things  which  are  not  our  own  originally,  inhe- 
rently, may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  ex  justitia,  by 
the  rule  of  righteousness.    And  this  may  be  done 


New  School  writers  still  use  old  terms.      49 

upon  a  double  relation  unto  those  whose  they 
are.  1.  Federal.  2.  Natural.  Things  done  hy 
one  may  he  imputed  unto  others,  proper  gelation- 
em  faderalem,  because  of  a  covenant  relation  be- 
tween them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to 
all  his  p)osterity.  And  the  ground  hereof  is,  that 
we  stood  in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who 
was  our  head  and  representative."  ....  "  Noth- 
ing is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto  any, 
but  the  rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the 
punishment  due  unto  that  sin." 

Though,  therefore,  Mr.  Barnes  uses  the  word 
impute,  he  does  not  mean  with  these  authors,  that 
Adam's  posterity  were  rendered  legally  liable  to 
punishment  on  account  of  his  sin ;  but  only  that 
they  are  "  subject  to  pain,  and  death,  and  deprav- 
ity, as  the  consequence  of  his  sin  ;"  "  subject  to  de^ 
pravity  as  the  consequence ;"  i.  e.  liable  to  become 
depraved  as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency, 
on  account  of  their  being  descended  from  Adam, 
who  was  "  the  head  of  the  race  ;"  and  who  hav- 
ing sinned,  "  secured  as  a  certain  result  that  all 
the  race  will  be  sinners  also  ;"  such  being  "  the 
organization  of  the  great  society^  which  he  was 
the  head  and  father."  ^The  drunkard,  says  he,  se- 
cures as  a  result,  commonly,  that  his  family  will 
be  reduced  to  beggary,  want  and  wo.  A  pirate, 
or  a  traitor,  will  whelm  not  himself  only,  but  his 
family  in  ruin.     Such  is  the  great  law  or  consti- 


50      New  School  writers  still  use  old  terms. 

tution,  on  which  society  is  now  organized;  and 
w^e  are  not  to  be  surprized  that  the  same  princi- 
ple occurred  in  the  primary  organization  of  hu- 
man affairs."  Is  this  the  sense  in  which  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  uses  the  word  impute  ?  I  will 
leave  it  for  the  reader  to  judge. 

Professor  Fitch  of  New-Haven  has  not  laid 
aside  the  phrase  original  sin,  though  the  whole 
drift  of  his  discourses  on  the  nature  of  sin  is  in- 
consistent with  the  common  doctrine,  and  was 
doubtless  intended  to  overthrow  it.  If  it  be  true 
according  to  him,  "  that  sin,  in  every  form  and  in- 
stance, is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent, 
in  which  he  violates  a  known  rule  of  duty,"  how 
can  it  be  possible  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as 
is  called  by  President  Edwards,  "  the  innate  sin- 
ful depravity  of  the  heart  ?"  Professor  Fitch  does 
not  pretend  that  there  is — and  yet  he  would 
make  his  readers  believe  that  he  holds  to  original 
sin,  and  he  tells  us  in  one  of  his  inferences,  that 
"  the  subject  may  assist  us  in  making  a  right  ex- 
planation of  the  doctrine."  And  v/hat  is  it  ? 
"  Nothing  can  in  truth  be  called  original  sin,  but 
his  first  moral  choice,  or  preference  being  evil." 
One  can  hardly  exculpate  him  from  disingenuous- 
ness  in  retaining  the  terms,  after  having  adopted 
principles  subversive  of  their  clear  import ;  and 
then  employing  them  in  a  sense  materially  differ- 
ent from  common  and  long  estabhshed  usage. 
He  must  certainly  have  known  that  his  definition 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Miller,  51 

of  original  sin  is  strikingly  at  variance  with  that 
of  Calvin ;  who  describes  it  as  "  an  hereditary 
depravity  and  corruption  of  our  nature,  diffused 
through  every  part  of  the  soul,  which  first  makes 
us  obnoxious  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  then  pro- 
duces those  works  which  the  scriptures  denomi- 
nate the  works  of  the  flesh." 

We  have  extended  these  remarks  ,so  much  be- 
yond what  v/e  anticipated,  that  the  quotations  we 
intended  to  make  in  proof  of  our  statement  con- 
cerning the  new  school  doctrines,  must  be  reserv- 
ed for  another  chapter.  We  will  therefore  close 
the  present  chapter  with  a  few  appropriate  and 
forcible  observations  of  Dr.  Miller,  taken  from  his 
Letters  to  Presbyterians.  After  enumerating 
most  of  the  new  school  doctrines  which  are 
brought  to  view  in  this  chapter  and  some  others 
which  we  shall  notice  hereafter,  he  says :  "  If 
Pelagian  and  semi-Pelagian  sentiments  existed 
in  the  fifth  century,  here  they  are  in  all  their  un- 
questionable and  revolting  features.  More  par- 
ticularly in  regard  to  the  denial  of  original  sin 
and  the  assertion  of  the  doctrine  of  human  ability, 
Pelagius  and  his  followers  never  went  further 
than  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  doctrines  above 
recited.  To  attempt  to  persuade  us  to  the  contra- 
ry, is  to  suppose  that  the  record  of  the  published 
language  and  opinions  of  those  ancient  heretics  is 
lost  or  forgotten.  And  to  assert  that  these  opin- 
ions are  reconcilable  with  the  Calvinistic  system, 


52  Remarks  of  Dr.  Miller. 

is  to  offer  a  poor  compliment  to  the  memory  of 
the  most  acute,  learned  and  pious  divines,  that 
ever  adorned  the  church  of  God,  from  the  days 
o^  Augustine  to  those  of  the  venerable  band  of 
Puritans,  who,  after  bearing  a  noble  testimony 
against  surrounding  errors  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic^  bore  the  lamp  of  truth  and  planted 
the  standard  of  Christ  in  this  vsrestern  hemisphere." 
These  observations  are  not  introduced  with  a- 
view  of  influencing  the  resKler  to  receive  the 
statement  they  contain,  on  the  mere  authority  of 
a  venerable  name  ;  nor  of  forestalling  his  judg- 
ment with  regard  to  the  points  under  considera- 
tion. All  that  we  expect  or  desire  is,  that  they 
will  influence  him  to  consider  the  controversy  not 
as  consisting  (as  some  profess  to  believe)  in  a 
mere  "  strife  about  words,''  but  as  involving  im- 
portant and  dangerous  errors  ;  and  will  induce 
him  to  give  that  attention  to  the  proofs  we  are 
about  to  exhibit,  and  to  other  sources  of  evidence 
to  which  he  may  have  access,  as  will  enable  him 
to  ascertain  to  his  entire  satisfaction,  "  whether 
these  things  are  so."  If  wise  and  good  men  now, 
concur  with  the  "  most  acute,  learned  and  pious 
divines  that  ever  adorned  the  church  of  God"  in 
former  days,  in  judging  these  sentiment  to  be  he- 
retical and  pernicious  ;  they  claim  the  careful  ex- 
amination of  those  who  attach  any  importance  ta 
religious  truth,  and  desire  to  enjoy  its  invaluable 
and  permanent  benefits. 


CHAP.  III. 

The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  continued,  exhibiting  the 
New  Theology  concerning  God's  covenant  with  Adam,  as 
the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  imputation,  original  sin,  &c. 

Our  statement  in  the  last  chapter  concerning 
the  New  Theology,  though  embraced  under  three 
or  four  general  heads,  involves  as  many  other 
points,  vs^hich  either  grow  out  of  the  former,  or 
are  so  connected  with  them,  that  our  views  of  the 
one  will  materially  affect  our  sentiments  concern- 
ing the  other.  Accordingly,  in  that  statement, 
these  several  particulars  were  presented ;  but 
they  are  so  involved  in  each  other  it  will  not  be 
easy  in  our  quotations  to  keep  them  entirely  dis- 
tinct. "We  shall  therefore  make  no  formal  divis- 
ions, but  introduce  them  in  such  order  as  we  find 
most  convenient. 

I  will  suppose  myself  in  the  company  of  several 
prominent  ministers,  to  whom  a  gentleman  pres- 
ent by  the  name  of  Querist,  proposes  the  follow- 
ing questions : 

Querist.  Mr.  Barnes,  I  have  recently  perused 
your  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  and  your 
Notes  on  the  Romans.  Am  I  correct  in  suppo- 
sing that  you  deny  that  any  covenant  was  made 


54  Covenant  with  Adam. 

with  Adam,  as  the  federal  head  or  representative 
of  his  posterity  1 

Mr.  Barnes.  "  Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant 
with  him.  No  where  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  term 
covenant  apphed  to  any  transaction  with  Adam, 
All  that  is  established  here  is  the  simple  fact  that 
Adam  sinned,  and  that  this  made  it  certain  that 
all  his  posterity  would  be  singers.  Beyond  this, 
the  language  of  the  Apostle  does  not  go  ;  and  all 
else  that  has  been  said  of  this,  is  the  result  of  mere 
philosophical  speculation." — Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans, 1st  edition,  p.  128.. 

Querist.  Was  not  Christ  the  covensmt  head  of 
his  people,  and  does  not  the  Apostle  draw  a  par- 
allel between  Adam  and  Christ  ? 

Mr.  Barnes.  "  A  comparison  is  also  instituted 
between  Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 25. 
The  reason  is,  not  that  Adam  was  the  representa- 
tive  or  federal  head  of  the  human  race,  about 
which  the  Apostle  says  nothing,  and  which  is  not 
even  implied,  but  that  he  was  the  first  of  the  race  y 
lie  was  the  fountain,  the  head,  the  father ;  and 
the  consequences  of  that  first  act,  introducing  sin 
into  the  world,  could  be  seen  every  where.  The 
words  reiyresenlative  midi  federal  head  are  never 
applied  to  Adam  in  the  Bible.  The  treason  is, 
that  the  word  representative  implies  an  idea  which 
could  not  have  existed  in  the  case — the  consent  of 
those   who  are  represented.     Besides,  the   Bible 


Views  of  Mr.  Barnes.  55 

does  not  teach  that  they  acted  in  him,  or  by  him  ; 
or  that  he  acted /or  them.  No  passage  has  ever 
yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." — Notes 
on  the  Romans,  1st  edition,  p.  120,  121. 

Querist.  I  perceive  that  in  the  later  editions  of 
your  Notes  the  above  phraseology  is  considerably 
changed — have  you  altered  your  sentiments  ? 

Mr.  Barnes.  "  Some  expressions  in  the  form- 
er editions  have  been  misunderstood  ;  some  are 
now  seen  to  have  been  ambiguous  ;  a  fev\^  that 
have  given  offence  have  been  changed,  because, 
without  abandoning  any  principle  of  doctrine  or 
interpretation,  I  could  convey  my  ideas  in  lan- 
guage more  acceptable  and  less  fitted  to  produce 
offence.". — Advertisement  to  the  5th  edition.  "My 
views  have  never  changed  on  the  subject  that  I 
can  now  recollect."- — Mr.  Barnes'  Defence  before 
the  2n4  Presbitery  of  Philadelphia,  in  June  and 
July,  1835. 

Querist.  Do  you  then  deny  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  ? 

Mr.  Barnes.  "  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an 
effort  to  explain  the  manner  of  an  event  which  the 
Apostle  did  not  think  it  proper  to  attempt  to  ex- 
plain. That  doctrine  is,  in  fact,  no  explanation. 
It  is  introducing  an  additional  difficulty.  For,  to 
say  that  I  am  blameworthy,  or  iildeserving,  for  a 
sin  in  which  I  had  no  agency,  is  no  explanation, 
but  is  involving  me  in  an  additional  difficulty,  still 


56  Imputation — Edwards^  Views, 

more  perplexing,  to  ascertain  how  such  a  doctrine 
can  possibly  be  just." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  7th 
edition,  p.  121,  122.  "  Christianity  does  not 
charge  on  men  crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guil- 
ty. It  does  not  say,  as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner 
is  held  to  be  personally  answerable  for  the  trans- 
gressions of  Adam,  or  of  any  other  man." — Ser- 
mon on  the  way  of  Salvation. 

Querist.  You  cannot  be  ignorant  sir,  that  these 
views  are  at  variance  with  the  sentiments  of  Cal- 
vinistic  writers.  The  5th  chapter  of  Romans  has 
been  universally  considered  as  teaching  this  doc- 
trine. President  Edwards  says  :  "  As  this  place, 
in  general,  is  very  full  and  plain,  so  the  doctrine 
of  the  corruption  of  nature,  derived  from  Adam, 
and  also  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are  both 
clearly  taught  in  it.  The  imputation  of  Adam's 
one  transgression,  is,  indeed,  most  directly  and 
frequently  asserted.  We  are  here  assured  that 
by  ONE  man's  sin,  death  passed  upon  all ;  all  be- 
ing adjudged  to  this  punishment,  as  having  sinned 
(so  it  is  implied)  in  tliat  one  man's  sin.  And  it  is 
repeated  over  and  over,  that  all  are  condemned, 
many  are  dead,  jnany  made  sinners,  ^'C.  by  one 
man^s  offence,  by  the  dAsobedience  of  one,  and  by 

ONE  offence.^^ "  Though  the  word  impute  is 

not  used  with  respect  to  Adam's  sin,  yet  it  is  said, 
all  have  sinned ;  which,  respecting  infants,  c^n  be 
true  only  of  their  sinning  by  this  sin.     And  it  is 


Views  of  Mr,  Barnes.  5T 

said,  by  his  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners  ; 
Siud  judgment  csLine  upon  all  by  that  sin  ;  and  that 
by  this  means,  death  (the  wages  of  sin)  passed  on 
all  men,  &c.  which  phrases  amount  to  full  and 
precise  explanations  of  the  word  impute;  and, 
therefore,  do  more  certainly  determine  the  point 
really  insisted  on." — Edwards  on  Original  Sin, 
vol.  2,  p.  512,  517. 

Mr.  Barnes.     "  It  is  not  denied  that  this  [my] 
language  varies  from  the  statements  which  are 
often  made  on  the  subject,  and  from  the  opinion 
which  has  been  entertained  by  many  men.     And 
it  is  admitted  that  it  does  not  accord  with  that  used 
on  the  same  subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
in  other  standards  of  doctrine.     The  main  differ- 
ence is,  that  it  is  difficult  to  affix  any  clear  and 
definite  meaning  to  the  expression  "  we  sinned  m 
him  and  fell  with  him.'*     It  is  manifest,  so  far  as 
it  is  capable  of  interpretation,  that  it  is  intended 
to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is 
imputed  to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account ;  but 
that  there  was  a  personal  identity  constituted  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  real- 
ly our  act,  and  ours  only,  after  all,  that  is  charge- 
able on  us.     This  was  the  idea  of  Edwards.     The 
notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an  invention  of  modern 
times ;  and  it  is  not,  it  is  believed,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith." "Christianity  af- 
firms the  fact,  that,  in  connection  with  the  sin  of 


58  Covenant  with  Adam, 

Adam,  or  as  a  result,  all  moral  agents  in  this  world 
will  sin,  and  sinning,  will  die. — Rom.  v.  12 — 19. 
It  does  not  affirm,  however,  any  thing  about  the 
mode  in  which  this  would  be  done.  There  are 
many  ways,  conceivable,  in  which  that  sin  might 
secure  the  result,  as  there  are  many  ways  in  which 
all  similar  facts  may  be  explained.  The  drunk- 
ard commonly  secures,  as  a  result,  the  fact,  that 
his  family  will  be  beggared,  illiterate,  perhaps 
profane  or  intemperate.  Both  facts  are  evidently 
to  be  explained  on  the  same  principle  as  a  part  of 
moral  government." — Note  to  his  sermon  on  the 
Way  of  Salvation. 

Querist.  Are  these  the  views  of  the  other  gen- 
tlemen present  ? 

Mr.  Duffield.  "  If  by  [the  union  of  represen- 
tation] is  meant  nothing  more  than  that  Adam 
did  not  act  exclusively  for  himself;  but  that  his 
conduct  was  to  determine  the  character  and  con- 
duct of  those  that  should  come  after  him,  we  will 
not  object.  But  if  it  is  meant  to  designate  any 
2)ositive  procedure  of  God,  in  which  He  made  Ad- 
am to  stand,  and  required  him  to  act,  as  the  sub- 
stitute of  the  persons  of  his  offspring,  numerically 
considered,  and  by  name,  head  for  head,  so  that 
they  might  be  held,  as  in  commercial  transactions, 
personally  liable  for  this  sin,  as  being  guilty  co- 
partners with  him  in  it,  we  certainly  may  require 


Views  of  Mr.  Vuffieid.  59 

other  and  better  proof  than  what  is  commonly 
submitted." — Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p.  391. 

Querist.  I  know  of  no  one  who  holds  the  doc- 
trine precisely  as  you  have  stated  it — but  let  me 
inquire  whether  you  believe  there  existed  any  le- 
gal union  between  Adam  and  his  posterity  on  ac- 
count of  his  being  their  covenant  head  ?  and,  that 
the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  was  imputed  to  them,  or 
set  over  in  law  to  their  account,  so  that  they  were 
thereby  subjected  to  penal  evils  ? 

Mr.  DufReld.  "When  it  is  said,  in  the  second 
commandment,  that  God  visits  the  iniquities  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generations,"  will  it  be  contended  that  this  is  be- 
cause the  former  stood  as  the  representatives  of 
the  latter,  acting  legally/,  in  their  name,  and  for 
them  ?  We  presume  not.  And  yet  stronger  lan- 
guage cannot  be  employed  to  denote  the  results 
which  flow  from  Adam's  sin,  by  virtue  of  our  con- 
nection with  him.  Why,  then,  must  we  suppose 
that  there  is  a  principle  in  the  one  case  different 
from  that  in  the  other  ?  And  that  what  seems  to 
flow  out  of  the  natural  relation  between  parent 
and  children,  and  to  be  the  natural  consequence 
of  such  relation,  must  be  attributed  to  a  legal  un- 
ion or  77i07rd  idenity  between  Adam  and  his  off"- 
spring?" — Duffield  on  Regeneration,  p.  392. 

Querist.  According  to  this  view,  what  becomes 
of  the  old  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in 


^0  I-mputation  cmd  Original  Sin, 

the  corruption  or  depravity  of  our  nature  ?  The 
doctrines  of  imputation  and  a  corrupt  nature  have 
been  regarded  as  so  closely  connected,  that  the 
denial  of  the  former  involved  the  rejection  of  the 
latter — and  the  same  proofs  vv^hich  have  been  re- 
lied upon  to  establish  the  one,  have  generally  been 
aduced  to  defend  the  other.  Thus,  President  Ed- 
wards, in  the  passage  already  referred  to,  says : 
"  And  the  doctrine  of  original  depravity  is  also 
here  taught,  [i.  e.  in  Rom.  v.  12 — 21,]  where  the 
Apostle  says,  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world;  having  a  plain  respect  (as  hath  been 
shown)  to  that  universal  corruption  and  wicked- 
ness, as  well  as  guilt,  which  he  had  before  largely 
treated  of."  Is  original  sin  to  be  given  up ;  or  so 
modified  as  to  become  an  entirely  different  doc- 
trine ? 

Dr.  Beecher — "  The  reformers  with  one  ac- 
cord, taught  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed  to 
all  his  posterity,  and  that  a  corrupt  nature  descends 
from  him  to  every  one  of  his  posterity,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  infants  are  unholy,  unfit  for 
heaven,  and  justly  exposed  to  future  punishment. 
Their  opinion  seems  to  have  been,  that  the  very 
substance  or  essence  of  the  soul  was  depraved, 
and  that  the  moral  contamination  extended  alike 
to  all  its  powers  and  faculties,  insomuch  that  sin 
became  a  property  of  every  man's  nature,  and 
was  propagated  as  really  as  flesh  and  blood."  .  . 


Views  of  Dr.  Beecker.  61 

"  Our  Puritan  fathers  adhered  to  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  and  in  a  hereditary  depravity ;  and 
this  continued  to  be  the  received  doctrine  of  the 
churches  of  New  England  until  after  the  time  of 
Edwards.  He  adopted  the  views  of  the  reform- 
ers on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved  na- 
ture, transmitted  by  descent.  But  after  him  this 
mode  of  stating  the  subject  was  gradually  chan- 
ged, until  long  since,  the  prevailing  doctrine  in 
New  England  has  been,  that  men  are  not  guilty 
of  AdairHs  sin,  and  that  depravity  is  not  of  the 
substance  of  the  soul,  nor  an  inherent  or  physical 
quality,  but  is  wholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  a 
transgression  of  the  law,  in  such  circumstances 
as  constitute  accountability  and  desert  of  punish- 
ment." Dr.  Beecher's  controversy  with  the  edi- 
tor of  the  Christian  Examiner  in  the  Spirit  of  the 
Pilgrims,  in  1828,  as  quoted  in  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory.* 


*  Since  writing  this  chapter,  I  have  seen  the  number  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  which  the  above  is  found,  with  Dr. 
Beecher's  own  signature.  In  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  he  ap- 
pears to  speak  a  different  language — language  not  easily  recon- 
ciled with  the  above  quotation.  But  as  he  does  not  profess  to 
have  changed  his  sentiments,  the  preceding  must  be  regarded 
as  expressing  his  opinions, 

P 


62         Depravity — Views  of  Dr.  BeecJier. 

Querist — Am  I  to  understand  by  these  re- 
marks,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  or  corrupt 
nature,  has  been  abandoned  ? 

Dr.  Beecher — "  Neither  a  holy  nor  a  depraved 
nature  are  possible  without  understanding,  con- 
science and  choice.  To  say  of  an  accountable 
creature,  that  he  is  depraved  by  nature,  is  only 
to  say  that  rendered  capable  by  his  Maker  of 
obedience,  he  disobeys  from  the  commencement 
of  his  accountability."  ....  "A  depraved  nature 
can  no  more  exist  without  voluntaiy  agency  and 
accountability,  than  a  material  nature  can  exist 
without  solidity  and  extension."  ....  "If,  there- 
fore, man  is  depraved  by  nature,  it  is  a  voluntary 
and  accountable  nature  which  is  depraved,  exer- 
cised in  disobedience  to  the  law  of  God." . .  "  Na- 
tive depravity,  then,  is  a  state  of  the  affections,  in 
a  voluntary  accountable  creature,  at  variance 
with  divine  requirement,  from  the  beginning  of 
accountability."  Sermon  on  the  Native  Charac- 
ter of  Man. 

Mr.  Finney — "  All  depravity  [is]  voluntaiy — 
consisting  in  voluntary  transgression.  [It  is]  the 
sinner's  own  act.  Something  of  his  own  crea- 
tion. That  over  which  he  has  a  perfect  control, 
and  for  which  he  is  entirely  responsible.  O  !  the 
darkness  and  confusion,  and  utter  nonsense  of 
that  view  of  depravity  which  exhibits  it,  as  some- 
thing lying  back,  and  the   cause  of  all  actual 


Views  of  Mr.  Finney  vnd  Duffield.        63 

transgression."  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects, 
p.  139. 

Querist — Does  all  sin,  then,  consist  in  acts  ? 

Prof.  Fitch — "  Sin,  in  every  form  and  instance, 
is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral  agent,  in  which 
he  violates  a  known  rule  of  duty."  Discourses 
on  the  Nature  of  Sin. 

Querist — By  parity  of  reasoning,  all  holiness 
must  likewise  consist  in  acts. 

Mr.  Finney — "  All  holiness  in  God,  angels,  or 
man,  must  be  voluntary  or  it  is  not  holiness."  .  .  . 
"  When  Adam  was  first  created,  and  awoke  into 
being,  before  he  had  obeyed  or  disobeyed  his 
Maker,  he  could  have  had  no  moral  character  at 
all :  he  had  exercised  no  affections,  no  desires, 
nor  put  forth  any  actions.  In  this  state  he  was 
a  complete  moral  agent ;  and  in  this  respect  in 
the  image  of  his  Maker:  but  as  yet  he  could 
have  had  no  moral  character ;  for  moral  charac- 
ter can  not  be  a  subject  of  creation,  but  attaches 
to  voluntary  actions."  Sermons  on  Important 
Subjects,  pp.  7,  10,  11. 

Querist — If  these  views  are  correct,  what  must 
be  said  concerning  infants?  Are  they  neither 
sinful  nor  holy  ? 

Mr.  Duffield — "  It  is  a  question  alike  pertinent 
and  important  whether  in  the  incipient  period  of 
infancy  and  childhood  there  can  be  any  moral 
character  whatever  possessed.     Moral  character. 


64  Character  of  Infants, 

is  character  acquired  by  acts  of  a  moral  nature^ 
Moral  acts  are  those  acts  which  are  contempla- 
ted by  the  law,  prescribing  the  rule  of  human 
conduct."  ....  "  It  is  obvious  that  in  infancy  and 
incipient  childhood,  when  none  of  the  actions  are 
deliberate,  or  the  result  of  motive,  operating  in 
connection  with  the  knowledge  of  law,  and  of  the 
great  end  of  all  human  actions,  no  moral  charac- 
ter can  appropriately  be  predicated."  ..."  Prop- 
erly speaking,  therefore,  we  can  predicate  of  it 
neither  sin  nor  holiness,  personally  considered.'^ 
Duffield  on  Regeneration,  pp.  377,  378,  379. 

Querist — Was  not  Jesus  Christ  holy  from  his 
birth? 

Mr.  DuffieM — "Things  inanimate  have  in 
scriptural  parlance,  sometimes,  been  called  holy. 
as  the  inmost  chamber  of  the  temple  was  called 
the  holy  of  holies ;  but  then  it  was  because  of 
some  especial  and  pecuhar  relationship  which  it 
had  to  God.  He  dwelt  in  it.  It  was  set  apart 
as  pre-eminently  and  exclusively  appropriate  to 
God.  In  this  sense  the  yet  unconscious  human 
nature  of  Christ  may  be  denominated  holy,  for  it 
was  the  habitation  of  God,  and  singularly  and 
exclusively  appropriate  to  him,  differing  in  this 
respect  essentially  and  entu-ely  from  that  of  any 
of  the  descendants  of  Adam."  Duffield  on  Re- 
generation, p.  353. 


Views  of  Duffield  and  Goodrich.  65 

Querist — If  infants  are  not  sinful  before  they 
arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  have  no  legal  or 
covenant  connection  v^^ith  Adam  as  their  repre- 
sentative, hovf  can  you  account  for  their  death  ? 

Mr.  Duffield — "  There  is  no  manner  of  neces- 
sity, in  order  to  account  for  the  death  of  infants, 
to  suppose  that  the  sin  of  Adam  became  their 
personal  sin,  either  in  respect  of  its  act,  or  its  ill 
desert.  Their  death  eventuates  according  to  that 
law  of  dependence,  which  marks  the  whole  gov- 
ernment of  God  in  this  world,  by  virtue  of  which 
the  consequences  of  the  act  of  one  man  terminates 
oft-times  on  the  person  of  another,  when  there  is 
not  the  union  of  representation."  Work  on  Re- 
generation, p.  389. 

Prof.  Goodrich,  of  New-Haven — "  Infants  die. 
The  answer  has  been  given  a  thousand  times ; 
brutes  die  also.  But,  .  .  .  .  "  animals  are  not 
subjects  of  the  moral  government  of  God."  Neith- 
er are  infants  previous  to  moral  agenc}^ ;  for  what 
has  moral  government  to  do  with  those  who  are 

not  moral  agents  ?" "  Animals  and  infants, 

previous  to  moral  agency  do,  therefore,  stand  on 
precisely  the  same  ground  in  reference  to  this 
subject.  Suffering  and  death  afford  no  more  ev- 
idence of  sin  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other." 
Christian  Spectator,  1829,  p.  373-— attributed  to 
Prof.  Goodrich. 


66  How  Depravity  eommencesr 

Querist — If  infants  do  not  possess  a  corrupt 
nature,  please  to  inform  me  by  what  process  they 
become  sinful — and  how  it  happens  that  not  one 
of  the  human  family  born  in  the  ordinary  way 
has  ever  escaped  this  catastrophe. 

Prof.  Goodrich — "  A  child  enters  the  world 
with  a  variety  of  appetites  and  desires,  which  are 
generally  acknowledged  to  be  neither  sinful  nor 
holy.  Committed  in  a  state  of  utter  helplessness^ 
to  the  assiduity  of  parental  fondness,  it  com- 
mences existence,  the  object  of  unceasing  care^ 
watchfulness  and  concession  to  those  around  him. 
Under  such  circumstances  it  is  that  the  natural 
appetites  are  first  developed,  and  each  advancing 
month  brings  them  new  objects  of  gratification. 
The  obvious  consequence  is,  that  self  indulgence 
becomes  the  master  principle  in  the  soul  of  every 
child,  long  before  it  can  understand  that  this  self 
indulgence  will  interfere  with  the  rights  or  in- 
trench on  the  happiness  of  others.  Thus,  by  re- 
petition, is  the  force  of  constitutional  propensities 
accumulating  a  bias  towards  self-gratification, 
which  becomes  incredibly  strong  before  a  knowl- 
edge of  duty  or  a  sense  of  right  and  WTong  can 
possibly  have  entered  the  mind.  That  moment — 
the  commencement  of  moral  agency,  at  length 

arrives." "  Why  then  is  it  so  necessary  to 

suppose    some    distinct    evil    propensity — some 
fountain  of  iniquity  in  the  breast  of  the  child  pre- 


Vieics  of  Goodrich  and  Duffield.  67 

vious  to  moral  action  ?" "  But  let  us  look 

at  facts.  Angels  sinned.  Was  the  cause  which 
led  to  their  first  act  of  rebellion,  in  itself  sinful  ? 
Eve  was  tempted  and  fell.  Was  her  natural  ap- 
petite for  food,  or  her  desire  for  knowiedge — to 
which  the  temptation  was  addressed — a  sinful 
feelhig  ?  And  why  may  not  our  constitutional 
propensities  now,  lead  to  the  same  result  at  the 
commencement  of  moral  agency,  as  was  actually 
exhibited  in  fallen  angels  and  our  first  parents, 
even  w^hen  advanced  in  holiness  ?"...."  Did  not 
vehement  desire  produce  sin  in  Adam's  first  act 
of  transgression  ?  Was  there  any  previous  prin- 
ciple of  depravity  in  him  ?  Why  then  may  not 
strong  constitutional  desires  be  followed  now  by 
a  choice  of  their  objects  as  well  as  in  the  case  of 
Adam  ?"     Ch.  Spec.  1829,  p.  366,  367, 368. 

Mr.  Duffield — The  infant  "  is  placed  in  a  rebel- 
lious world,  subject  to  the  influence  of  ignorance, 
with  very  limited  and  imperfect  experience,  and  li- 
able to  the  strong  impulses  of  appetite  and  passion." 
"  Instinct,  animal  sensation,  constitutional  sus- 
ceptibilities create  an  impulse,  which  not  being 
counteracted  by  moral  considerations  or  gracious 
influence,  lead  the  will  in  a  wrong  direction  and  to 
wrong  objects.  It  was  thus  that  sin  was  induced  in 
our  holy  progenitors.  No  one  can  plead  in  Eve 
an  efficient  cause  of  sin  resident  in  her  nature  (any 
pi^ava  vis)  or  operative  power,  sinful  in  itself,  an- 


68  How  Depravity  commencesi 

terior  to  and  apart  from  her  own  voluntary  acts. 
And  if  she  was  led  into  sin  though  characteris- 
tically holy,  and  destitute  of  any  innate  propensi- 
ty to  sin,  where  is  the  necessity  for  supposing  that 
the  sins  of  her  progeny  are  to  be  referred  to  such 
a  cause  ?" "  Temptation  alone  is  suffi- 
cient under  present  circumstances."  Work  on 
Regeneration,  p,  310,  379,  380. 

Mr.  Finney — "If it  be  asked  how  it  happens 
that  children  universally  adopt  the  principle  of  sel- 
fishness, unless  their  nature  is  sinful  ?  I  answer,  that 
they  adopt  the  principle  of  self-gratification  or  sel- 
fishness, because  they  possess  human  nature,  and 
come  into  being  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
in  which  all  the  children  of  Adam  are  born  since 
the  fall ;  but  not  because  human  nature  is  itself 
sinful.     The  cause  of  their  becoming  sinners  is  to 
be  found  in  their  nature's  being  what  it  is,  and 
surrounded  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  temp- 
tation to  which  they  are  exposed  in  a  world  of 
sinners." "  Adam  was  created  in  the  per- 
fection of  manhood,  certainly  not  with  a  sinful  na- 
ture, and  yet  an  appeal  to  his  innocent,  constitu- 
tional appetites  led  him  into  sin.     If  adult  Adam, 
without  a  sinful  nature,  and  after   a  season  of 
obedience    and    perfect    holiness,    was    led    to 
change  his  mind  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent, 
constitutional  propensities,  how  can  the  fact  that 
infants  possessing  the  same  nature  with  Adam, 


Vieivs  of  Finney  and  Taylor.  69 

and  surrounded  by  circumstances  of  still  greater 
temptation,  universally  fall  into  sin,  prove  that 
their  nature  is  itself  siniul  1  Is  such  an  inference 
called  for  ?  Is  it  legitimate  ?  What,  holy  and 
adult  Adam  is  led,  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent 
constitution,  to  adopt  the  principle  of  selfishness, 
and  no  suspicion  is  or  can  be  entertained,  that  he 
had  a  sinful  nature  ;  but  if  little  children  under 
circumstances  of  temptation,  aggravated  by  the 
fall,  are  led  into  sin,  we  are  to  believe  that  their 
nature  is  sinful !  This  is  wonderful  philosophy  !" 
Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  157. 

Dr.  Taylor — "  If  no  being  can  sin  without  a 
constitutional  propensity  to  sin,  how  came  Adam 
to  sin  ?  If  one  being,  as  Adam,  can  sin,  and  did 
in  fact  sin,  without  such  a  propensity  to  sin,  why 
may  not  others  ?"  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  6, 
p.  13,  as  quoted  by  Dow. 

Querist — Do  you  accord,  Dr.  Taylor,  with  the 
sentiment  just  expressed  by  Mr.  Finney,  that  "  in- 
fants possess  the  same  nature  with  AdaivH"  at  his 
creation  ? 

Dr.  Taylor — "Mankind  come  into  the  world 
with  the  same  nature  in  hind  as  that  with  which 
Adam  was  created."     Ibid.  vol.  6,  p.  5. 

Querist — ^What  influence  then  has  the  fall  ex- 
erted on  the  posterity  of  Adam  ? 

Dr.  Taylor — "  I  answer,  that  it  may  have  been 
to  change  their  nature,  not  in  hind,  but  degree." 
Ibid,  vol  6,  p.  12. 


70  AdarrCs  Nature  like  ours. 

Querist — On  the  supposition  that  the  nature  of 
Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity  were  alike  in  kind, 
why  did  not  he  sin,  as  soon  as  he  commenced  his 
moral  existence  ? 

Dr.  Taylor — "  I  answer,  that  the  reason  may 
have  been,  that  his  nature  differed,  not  in  kind, 
but  in  degree  from  that  of  his  posterity."     Ibid. 

Querist — On  this  principle,  in  what  respect  did 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  differ  from  that  of 
other  children  ? — and  if  he  possessed  in  his  human 
nature,  what  other  children  possess,  why  did  he 
not  exhibit  the  same  moral  character  ? 

Dr.  Taylor — "  I  might  answer  as  before,  that 
his  human  nature  may  have  differed  from  that  of 
other  children  not  in  kind,  but  degree.^'     Ibid. 

We  have  given  the  preceding  quotations  at 
considerable  length,  that  those  readers  who  may 
not  have  attended  to  the  controversy,  may  per- 
ceive from  their  own  statements,  its  various  bear- 
ings and  tendencies  ;  and  how  far  those  have 
gone  who  have  been  bold  enough  to  follow  out 
their  principles  to  their  legitimate  and  full  results. 
We  do  not  attribute  to  all  whose  names  we  have 
introduced,  every  sentiment  which  has  been  ad- 
vanced by  some  of  them — but  it  cannot  fail,  we 
think,  to  strike  the  mind  of  the  reader  that  there 
is  such  an  affinity  between  the  several  parts  of 
the  series,  that  the  man  who  adopts  one  of  the 
doctrines  in  this  category,  will  be  in  great  dan- 


Views  of  Dr.  Taylor.  71 

ger  of  ultimately  embracing  the  whole.  They  all 
belong  to  the  same  system  ;  and  ought  therefore 
to  be  introduced  in  stating  the  distinguishing  fea- 
tures of  the  New  Theology  ;  though  many  who 
adhere  to  the  system  in  part,  do  not  go  to  the  ne 
plus  ultra  of  the  scheme,  as  it  is  here  exhibited. 


CHAP,  IV. 

Remarks  on  imputation,  original  sin,  &c.  with  reference  to  tiie 
views  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

The  controversy  respecting  our  connection  with 
Adam,  and  the  influence  produced  upon  us  by 
the  fall,  commenced  early  in  the  fifth  century ; 
when  Pelagius,  a  British  monk,  published  opinions 
at  variance  with  the  common  doctrines  of  the 
church.  He  and  his  followers  entertained  sub- 
stantially the  same  views  which  have  been  ex- 
hibited in  the  preceding  chapter  ;  though  they 
adopted  a  method  somewhat  different  to  account 
for  the  commission  of  sin  by  little  children,  and 
Went  farther  in  their  views  concerning  the  influ- 
ence of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  descendants.  They 
maintained  that  "  the  sin  of  Adam  injured  himself 
alone,  and  did  not  affect  his  posterity ;"  and  that 
we  sin  only  by  "  imitation."  But  their  sentiments 
concerning  the  nature  of  sin,  original  sin,  and  im- 
putation, were  the  same  with  those  which  distin- 
guish the  New  Theology. 

Concerning  the  first,  Pelagius  says,  "  And  here 
in  my  qpinion  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be,  JVhat 
is  sin  ?  Is  it  a  substance,  or  is  it  a  mere  name 
devoid  of  substance  ;  not  a  thing,  not  an  exist- 
ence, not  a  body,  nor  any  thing  else  (which  has 


Views  of  Pelagius.  73 


a  separate  existence)  but  an  act  ;  and  if  this 
is  its  nature,  as  I  believe  it  is,  how  could  that 
which  is  devoid  of  substance  debilitate  or  change 

human  nature  ?" "  Every  thing,  good  or  evil, 

praiseworthy  or  censurable,  which  we  possess,  did 
not  originate  with  us,  hut  is  done  hy  us ;  for  we 
are  born  capable  both  of  good  and  evil,  but  in 
possession  of  these  qualities  ;  for  in  our  birth  we 
are  equally  destitute  of  virtue  and  vice  ;  and  pre- 
viously to  moral  agency,  there  is  nothing  m  man 
but  that  which  God  created  in  him.''  Biblical 
Repertory. 

This  question  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  was 
regarded  as  decisive  concerning  the  other  two ; 
and  it  w^as  introduced  by  Pelagius  with  that  view. 
Says  he,  "  It  is  disputed  concerning  this,  whether 
our  nature  is  debilitated  and  deteriorated  hy  sin. 
And  here,  in  my  opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought 
to  be  icJiat  is  sin  V  &c.  So  it  is  regarded  at  the 
present  time.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  In  order  to  ad- 
mit the  sinfulness  of  nature^  we  must  believe  sin 
to  consist  in  the  substance  of  the  constitution,  in- 
stead of  voluntary  action^  which  is  a  thing  impos- 
sible." Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  158. 
Mr.  Duffield,  after  stating  several  things  which 
he  supposes  may  be  meant  by  the  phrase  original 
sin,  gives  as  the  views  of  the  Westminster  divines, 
that  it  denotes  "  something  which  has  the  pov/er 
to    originate  sin,    and  which   is    necessarily  in- 

6 


74  Nature  of  Sin. 


volved  in  our  very  being,  from  the  first  moment 
of  its  origination."  This  he  intimates  was  intend- 
ed by  the  expression  in  our  catechism,  "  the  cor- 
injption  of  our  whole  nature."  He  then  says  (af- 
ter some  preliminaries)  "  It  is  strange  that  ever  it 
should  have  been  made  a  question,  whether  sin 
may  be  predicated  of  being  or  simple  existence, 
since  sin  is  undeniably  an  act  of  a  moral  character, 
and  therefore  can  only  be  committed  by  one  who 
is  possessed  of  moral  powers,  i.  e.  one  who  is 
capable  of  acting  according  as  the  law  requires 
or  proliibits." ....."  Holiness,  or  sin  which  is  its 
opposite,  has  a  direct  and  immediate  reference  to 
those  voluntary  acts  and  exercises,  which  the  law 
is  designed  to  secure,  or  prevent."  ,  .  .  .  "  How. 
very  absurd,  therefore,  is  it  to  predicate  sin  of 
that  which  does  not  fall  under  cognizance  of  law 
at  all  r  Though  he  uses  the  phrase  "being  or 
simple  existence,"  as  that  concerning  which  it  is 
absurd  to  predicate  sin,  he  refers  unquestionably 
to  the  expression  in  the  catechism  which  he  had 
just  quoted,  and  upon  which  he  w^as  remarking, 
viz.  "  the  corruption  of  our  whole  nature."  It  is 
absurd  therefore,'  according  to  him,  to  speak  of 
our  having  a  corrupt  nature,  since,  as  he  main- 
tains, all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  acts  of  a  moral 
agent,  in  violation  of  a  known  law.  Hence  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  and 
original  sin,  are  rejected  as  unphilosophical  and 
absurd. 


Vietos  of  PelagiuSy  S(^.  75 

Says  Pelagius,  "  When  it  is  declared  that  all 
have  sinned  in  Adam,  it  should  not  be  understood 
of  any  original  sin  contracted  hy  their  birth,  but  of 
imitation."  .  .  .  .  "  How  can  a  man  be  considered 
guilty  by  God  of  that  sin  which  he  knows  not  to 
be  his  own  ?  for  if  it  is  necessary,  it  is  not  his  own ; 
but  if  it  is  his  own,  it  is  voluntary  ;  and  if  voluntary, 
it  can  be  avoided." 

Julian,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Pelagius,  says, 
"  Whoever  is  accused  of  a  crime,  the  charge  is 
made  against  his  conduct,  and  not  against  his 
birth.''  .  .  .  .  "  Therefore  we  conclude  that  the 
triune  God  should  be  adored  as  most  just ;  and  it 
has  been  made  to  appear  most  irrefragably,  that 
the  sin  of  another  never  can  be  imputed  by  him  to 
little  children.^^ . . . . "  Hence  that  is  evident  which 
we  defend  as  most  reasonable,  that  no  one  is 
born  in  sin,  and  that  God  never  judges  men  to  be 

guilty  on  account  of  their  birth." "  Children, 

inasmuch  as  they  are  children,  never  can  be 
guilty,  until  they  have  dome  something  by  their 
own  proper  will."     Biblical  Repertory. 

How  striking  is  the  resemblance  between  these 
views  and  the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Barnes  : 
"When  Paul,"  says  he,  "  states  a  simple /acf,  men 
often  advance  a  theory. ...  A  melancholy  instance 
of  this  we  have  m  the  account  which  the  apostle 
gives,  (ch.  5,)  about  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
....  They  have  sought  for  a  theory  to  account 


76  Pelagianism  condemned, 

for  it.  And  many  suppose  they  have  found  it  in 
the  doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or 
set  over  by  an  arbitrary  arrangement  to  beings 
otherwise  innocent,  and  that  they  are  held  to  be 
responsible  for  a  deed  committed  by  a  man  thou- 
sands of  years  before  they  were  born.  This  i^ 
the  theory ;  and  men  insensibly  forget  that  it  is 
mere  theory.^^  .  ..."  I  understand  it,  therefore, 
[Rom.  5,  12,]  as  referring  to  the  fact  that  men  sin 
in  their  own  persons,  sin  in  themselves — as  indeed 
hov^  can  they  sin  in  any  other  way  ?"  Notes  on 
theRomans,  p.  10,  117. 

We  admit  that  this  coincidence  between  the 
new  school  doctrines  and  Pelagianism,  does  not 
afford  certain  proof  of  their  being  untrue.  It  is 
however  a  strong  presumptive  evidence,  since  Pe- 
lagianism has  been  rejected  as  heretical  by  every 
evangehcal  church  in  Christendom. 

Coelestius,  a  disciple  of  Pelagius,  is  said  to  have 
been  more  zesdous  and  successful  in  the  propaga- 
tion of  these  errors  than  his  master.  Hence,  in 
early  times,  they  were  perhaps  associated  with 
his  name,  more  than  with  that  of  Pelagius. 
Among  other  councils  who  condemned  his  heresy, 
was  the  council  of  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431 ;  who  "  de- 
nominated it  the  wicked  doctrine  of  CcBlestius.'" 
Biblical  Repertory. 

In  a  number  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith  adop- 
ted by  different  churches  after  the  Reformatk«>> 


Doctrine  of  our  Standards.  77 

Pelagianism  is  mentioned  by  name.  Thus,  in  one 
of  the  Articles  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  said, 
"  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  ^^Z- 
am  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the 
fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man, 
that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  J.(i- 
am^  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  inclir^ed  to 
evil." 

Though  in  the  Westminister  Confession,  this 
heresy  is  not  expressly  named,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  framers  intended  to  reject  and  con- 
demn it.  Compare  the  preceding  doctrines  of  Pe- 
lagius  and  his  followers  with  our  quotations  from 
the  Confession  of  Faith  in  chap.  3d  ;  also  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  larger  catechism :  "  The  sinful- 
ness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth 
in  the  guilt  o^  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that 
righteousness  wherein  he  w^as  created,  and  the 
corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  in- 
disposed, disabled,  and  made  opposite  unto  all  that 
is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, 
and  that  continually :  w^hich  is  commonly  called 

Sis' 

original  sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  ac- 
tual transgressions." 

We  have  said  that  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  and  origial  sin,  arises  in  part  from  the 
adoption  of  the  theory  that  all  sin  consists  in  acts. 


78  All  sin  does  not  consist  in  acts. 

Upon  this  point,  therefore,  it  will  be  pertinent  to 
make  a  few  remarks. 

1.  Holiness  and  sin  are  predicated  of  the /^ear?. 
Thus  the  Bible  speaks  of  an  honest  and  good 
heart,  a  broken  heart,  a  clean  heart,  an  evil  heart, 
a  hard  heart,  &c.  which  convey  the  idea  that  there 
is  something  in  man  of  a  moral  character,  prior  to 
his  acts — something  which  forms  the  basis  from 
which  his  good  and  evil  actions  proceed ;  and 
which  determines  the  character  of  those  actions. 
Hence  holiness  and  sin  do  not  consist  wholly  in 
acts,  but  belong  to  our  nature. 

2.  We  are  said  to  be  conceived  and  born  in 
sin — and  if  so,  we  must  be  sinful  by  nature  ;  for 
we  have  not  then  put  forth  any  moral  acts. 

3.  We  are  declared  to  be  by  nature  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath — and  if  children  of  wrath  by  nature,, 
then  we  must  be  hy  nature,  sinners,  for  sin  alone 
exposes  to  wrath.  All  sin  therefore  cannot  con- 
sist in  acts. 

4.  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God — 
which,  according  to  our  standards,  consisted  in 
"  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness."  By  the 
fall  this  image  was  lost.  In  regard  to  spiritual 
things  we  became  ignorant.  "  The  natural  man 
discerneth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God," 
&c.  Our  moral  characters  became  corrupt  and 
wicked.  In  other  words,  we  forfeited  our  original 
righteousness  and  became  prone  to  evil.     By  re- 


Image  of  God.  79 


generation  this  image  is  restored.  Col.  iii.  10  : 
"  And  have  put  on  the  new  man  which  is  renewed 
in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  Him  that  created 
him."  Eph  iv.  24 :  "  And  that  ye  put  on  the  new 
man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness^  These  texts  are  decisive  as 
to  what  the  image  of  God  consisted  in,  viz. 
"knowledge,  righteousness  and  true  hohness." 
Yet  in  this  image  man  was  created ;  and  of  course 
possessed  it  before  he  put  forth  moral  acts.  Con- 
sequently all  holiness  and  sin  do  not  consist  in 
acts,  but  may  be  predicated  of  our  nature. 

The  manner  in  which  this  argument  has  been 
disposed  of,  is  truly  singular.  On  the  principle 
that  all  holiness  consists  in  acts,  it  cannot  be  cre- 
ated. This  the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology 
admit.  Since  then,  Adam  was  created  in  the  im- 
age of  God,  a  new  theory  must  be  devised  as  to 
what  that  image  was.  In  this,  however,  there  is 
not  a  perfect  agreement.  According  to  Mr.  Fin- 
ney, it  consisted  in  moral  agency.  "  In  this  state, 
says  he,  [i.  e.  when  Adam  w^as  first  created,]  he 
was  a  complete  moral  agent,  and  in  this  respect  in 
the  image  of  his  Maker. ^'  Sermons  on  Important 
Subjects,  p.  1 1.  Mr.  Duffield  makes  it  consist  prin- 
cipally in  some  imaginary  resemblance  to  the 
Trinity.  "  There  is,  however,"  says  he,  "  one  im- 
portant respect  in  which  this  resemblance  in  man 
to  God  may  be  seen,  which,  indeed,  is  generally 


80  Image  of  God, 


overlooked,  but  which  we  are  disposed  to  think 
is  of  principal  consequence.  It  is  not  one  person 
of  the  Godhead  only  who  is  represented  as  speak- 
ing at  the  formation  of  man,  but  the  whole  three. 
Jehovah,  the  ever  blessed  Th7^ee  in  One,  said,  "Let 
us  make  man  in  our  image" — not  in  the  image  of 
any  one  person,  nor  of  each  distinctly,  but  of  all 
conjointly.  Plow  admirably  are  the  distinct  per- 
sonality and  essential  unity  of  the  Godhead  rep- 
resented or  imaged  in  man  possessing  three  dis- 
tinct kinds  of  hfe,  and  yet  constituting  but  one 
moral  being.  In  him  are  united  the  vegetable,  the 
animal,  and  the  moral  or  spiritual  life,  each  hav- 
ing and  preserving  its  distinct  character,  but  all 
combined  in  one  responsible  individual." — Work 
on  Regeneration,  p.  143. 

What  a  pity  it  is  that  the  Apostle  Paul  had  not 
become  acquainted  with  this  new  theory  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness  !  He  would  not 
then  have  committed  such  a  mistake  in  describing 
the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created,  and 
to  which  we  are  restored  by  divine  grace  ! 

5.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  preceding  re- 
marks, that  this  doctrine  involves  also  a  new  the- 
ory of  regeneration.  This  is  not  denied — and 
hence  the  sentiments  which  have  long  prevailed 
on  this  subject  are  rejected,  and  the  notion  of 
gradual  regeneration  by  moral  suasion,  is  substi- 
tuted in  their  place.     But  as  we  intend  to  exhibit 


Future  state  of  Infants.  81 

this  feature  of  the  New  Theology  more  at  length 
in  a  subsequent  chapter,  we  will  not  dwell  upon  it 
here. 

6.  This  doctrine  places  those  who  die  in  in- 
fancy in  a  most  unenviable  position.  If  all  sin 
and  holiness  consist  in  the  voluntary  acts  of  a  mor- 
al agent,  infants,  before  arriving  at  moral  agency, 
have  no  moral  character  ;  but  stand  in  respect  to 
moral  government,  on  the  same  level  with  brute 
animals.  This  is  the  new  school  doctrine.  Since 
therefore,  thousands  die  in  infancy,  w^here  do  they 
go  ?  If  they  have  no  moral  character,  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel  are  no  more  adapted  to  them, 
than  to  the  brutes.  Hence  if  they  die  before  they 
become  moral  agents,  they  must  either  be  anni- 
hilated, or  spend  an  eternity  in  some  unknown  and 
inconceivable  state  of  existence — neither  in  Hea- 
ven nor  hell,  but  possibly  between  the  two — in 
some  limbus  infantum,  similar,  perhaps,  to  that  of 
the  papists ;  yet  with  this  advantage  in  favor  of 
the  latter,  that  their  infants,  possessing  moral  char- 
acter, may  be  renewed  and  saved.  What  a  com- 
fortless doctrine  must  this  be  to  parents,  v/hen 
weeping  by  the  cradle  of  expiring  infancy  !* 


*  The  manner  in  which  the  advocates  of  the  ^ew  Theology 
attempt  to  relieve  themselves  from  this  difficulty,  is  the  follow, 
ing,  viz.  that  the  atonement  places  those  who  die  in  infancy  in 
^uch  rArcumslances  in  the   next  world,  as  to  result  in  their  be- 


82  Salvation  of  Infants. 

7.  The  death  of  infants  affords  strong  proof  of 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin.  If 
there  is  no  legal  connection  between  us  and 
Adam,  if  his  sin  is  7iot  imputed  to  us,  and  we  are 
not  horn  w^ith  a  corrupt  nature ;  where  is  the 
justice  of  inflicting  upon  infants  who  have  never 
committed  actual  transgression,  a  part  of  the  pen- 
alty threatened  upon  Adam  for  his  disobedience  ? 

8.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  affords  the  only 
evidence  we  can  have  that  those  dying  in  infancy 
are  saved.  If  Adam's  sin  was  not  imputed  to 
them  to  their  condemnation,  how  can  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  be  imputed  to  them  for  their 
justification  ?  Christ  came  to  "  seek  and  save 
that  which  was  lost" — "  to  save  sinners" — he 
saves  no  others.  If,  therefore,  they  w^ere  not 
lost  in  Adam — if  they  were  not  made  sinners  by 
his  sin — Christ  did  not  come  to  save  them.  But 
he  did  come  to  save  such.  Says  he,  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  They 
are  therefore  sinners — and  as  they  lost  their  orig- 
inal righteousness  through  the  first  Adam,  the 
foundation  was  laid  for  their  restoration  and  sal- 


coming  holy  at  the  commencement  of  moral  agency.  But  this 
supposition  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture.  Christ  is  never 
represented  as  entering  our  world  to  prevent  men  from  beoom. 
ing  sinners,  but  to  save  those  who  were  sinners  already. 


Gospel  Plan  of  Salvation.  83 


vation  through  the  second.  On  any  other  prin- 
ciple there  would  be  no  hope  in  their  case.  But 
here  is  ground  for  consolation.  In  the  language 
of  Dr.  Watts, 

"  A  thousand' new-born  babes  are  dead, 

"  By  fatal  union  to  their  head  : 

"Hut  whilst  our  spirits,  fiU'd  with  awe, 

"Behold  the  terrors  of  thy  law, 

"  We  sing  the  honors  of  thy  grace, 

"  That  sent  to  save  our  ruin'd  race :     ' 

"  Adam  the  second,  from  the  dust 

"  Raises  the  ruins  of  the  first."  •  ' 

9.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essential  to  a 
correct  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  As  Prof. 
Hodgp  has  well  expressed  it :  "  The  denial  of 
this  doctrine  involves  also  the  denial  of  the  scrip- 
tural view  of  the  atonement  and  justification.  It 
is  essential  to  the  scriptural  form  of  these  doc- 
trines that  the  idea  of  legal  substitution  should  be 
retained.  Christ  bore  our  sins ;  our  iniquities  were 
laid  upon  him ;  \vhich,  according  tothe  true  mean- 
ing of  scripture  language,  can  only  signify,  that  he 
bore  the  punishment  of  those  sins  ;  not  the  same 
evils  indeed  either  in  kind  or  degree  ;  but  still 
penal,  because  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support 
of  law. . . .  This  idea  of  legal  substitution  enters 
also  into  the  scriptural  view  of  justification.  In 
justification,  according  to  Paul's  language,  God 
imputes  righteouness  to  the  ungodly.  This  right- 
eousness is  not  their  own  ;  but  they  are  regarded 


84  Gospel  Plan  of  Salvation. 

and  treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ.  That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so 
laid  to  their  account  or  imputed  to  them  that  they 
are  regarded  and  treated  as  if  it  were  their  ov/n, 
or  as  if  they  had  kept  the  law."  Commentary 
on  the  Romans,  p,  127^  128.  The  connection  of 
imputation  with  the  work  of  Christ,  gives  to  this 
doctrine  its  chief  importance.  The  same  princi- 
ple is  applied  in  the  Bible  both  to  Adam  and 
Christ.  If,  therefore,  we  deny  our  legal  connex- 
ion with  Adam,  and  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin 
to  his  posterity,  we  must  necessarily  adopt  views 
concerning  the  method  of  salvation  by  Jesus 
Christ, materially  different  from  those  above  given. 
On  the  supposition  that  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation is  inadmissible  in  the  case  of  Adam,  it 
must  be  equally  so  in  reference  to  Christ.  If  we 
cannot  be  condemned  in  law  by  the  disobedience 
of  the  one,  we  cannot  be  justified  by  the  obedi- 
ence of  the  othero  A  blow  is  thus  struck  at  the 
foundation  of  our  hope  ;— a  blow,  which,  if  it.  de- 
stroys our  connexion  v/ith  Adam,  destroys  also 
our  connexion  with  Christ,  and  our  title  to 
heaven. 

Says  Owen,  "  By  some  the  imputation  of  the 
actual  apostacy  and  transgression  of  Adam,  the 
head  of  cur  nature,  whereby  our  sin  became  the 
sin  of  the  world,  is  utterly  denied.  Hereby  both 
the  ground  the  apostle  proceedeth  on,  in  evincing 
the   necessity  of  our  justification  or  our  being 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Owen.  85 

nlade  righteous   by  the   obedience   of  another, 
and  all  the  arguments  brought  in  confirmation  of 
the  doctrine  of  it,  in  the  5th  chapter  of  his  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  are  evaded  and  overthrown.  So- 
cinus  confesseth  that  place  to  give  great  counte- 
nance unto  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  im- 
putation of  the   righteousness   of  Christ  ;    and 
therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose  v^ith  sundry 
artifices,  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  unto 
his  natural   posterity.     For   he   perceived   well 
enough  that  upon  the  admission  thereof,  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  unto  his 
spiritual  seed,  would  unavoidably  follow  according 
unto  the  tenor  of  the  apostle's  discourse."  .... 
"  Some  deny  the  depravation  and  corruption  of 
our  nature,  which  ensued  on  our  apostacy  from 
God,  and  the  loss  of  his  image.     Or  if  they  do 
not  absolutely  deny  it,  yet  they  so  extenuate  it 
as  to  render  it  a  matter  of  no  great  concern  unto 
us."  ....  "  That  deformity  of  soul  which  came 
upon  us  in  the  loss  of  the  image  of  God,  wherein 
the  beauty  and  harmony  of  all  our  faculties,  in  all 
their  actings,  in  order  unto  their  utmost  end,  did 
consist ;  that  enmity  unto  God,  even  in  the  mind 
which  ensued  thereon  ;  that  darkness  with  which 
our  understandings  were  clouded,  yea,  blinded 
withal ;  the  spiritual  death  which  passed  on  the 
whole  soul,  and  total  alienation  from  the  life  of 
God  ;  that  impotency  unto  good,  that  inclination 

H 


86  Imputation  and  Original  Sin. 

unto  evil,  that  deceitfulness  of  sin,  that  power  and 
efficacy  of  corrupt  lusts,  which  the  scriptures  and 
experience  so  fully  charge  on  the  state  of  lost 
nature,  are  rejected  as  empty  notions  or  fables= 
No  w^onder  if  such  persons  look  upon  imputed 
righteousness  as  tlie  shadow  of  a  dream,  who  es- 
teem those  things  w^hich  evidence  its  necessity  to 
be  but  fond  imaginations.  And  small  hope  is  there 
to  bring  such  men  to  value  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  as  imputed  to  them,  who  are  so  unac- 
quainted with  their  own  unrighteousness  inherent 
in  them." 

10.  The  scripture  proofs  relied  upon  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin, 
are  such  as  the  following.  John  iii.  3,  6  ;  "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is  bom  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  wdiich  is  born  of  the  Spirit 
is  spirit."  Here  our  first  or  natural  birth  is  con- 
trasted with  our  second  or  spiritual  birth.  If  at 
the  first  we  are  unfit  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  are  qualified  only  by  the  second,  then  it  is 
clear  we  are  horn  sinners. 

Rom.  V.  12 — 21,  "  As  by  one  man  sin  enter- 
ed into  the  world  and  death  by  sin,  so  death  pass- 
ed upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,"  &c. 
We  have  already  quoted  some  remarks  on  this 
passage  from  President  Edwards,  in  the  last 
chapter,  to  which  we  refer  the  reader.  The 
quotation  commences   as  follows :    "  The  doc- 


Scripture  Proofs,  87 

trine  of  the  corruption  of  natu7'e,  derived  from 
Adam,  and  also  the  imjmtation  of  his  first  sin,  are 
both  clearly  taught  in  it,"  &c.  The  phrases  "  for 
that,  or  in  whom  all  have  sinned,'^  "  through  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead"  "  the  judgment  w^as 
by  one  to  condemnation"  " by  one  man's  offence, 
death  reigned  by  one,"  "  by  one  man's  disobedi- 
ence many  were  ijiade  sinners,"  and  other  similar 
ones,  contain  so  exact  a  description  of  the  doctrine, 
that  the  proof  which  they  furnish  would  not  be 
more  conlcusive,  if  the  very  words  impute  and  ori- 
ginal sin  had  been  introduced. 

Rom.  vii.  18 — 23.  "For  I  know  that  in  me 
(that  is  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing ;  for 
to  will  is  present  with  me  ;  but  how  to  perform 
that  which  is  good,  I  find  not,"  &c.  This  strug- 
gle between  the  old  and  new  man,  between  in- 
dwelling sin  and  the  principle  of  grace,  affords 
strong  evidence  of  the  natural  propensity  of  man 
to  sin. 

1  Cor.  XV.  22.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  By  simply 
reversing  the  order  of  the  passage,  its  relevancy 
to  our  present  purpose  will  be  manifest.  As  all 
who  shall  be  made  alive  will  enjoy  this  blessing 
by  virtue  of  their  connexion  with  Christ  as  their 
covenant  head  ;  so  all  who  die,  experience  this 
calamity  in  consequence  of  a  similar  connexion 
with  Adam  ;  who  "  being  the  root  of  all  mankind, 


88  Imputation  and  Original  Sin. 

the  guilt  of  [his  first  sin]  was  imputed,  and  the 
same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature,  convey- 
ed to  all  his  posterity,  descending  from  him  by 
ordinary  generation." 

Eph.  ii.  3.  "  And  were  by  nature  the  children 
of  wTath,  even  as  others."  This  has  been  gene- 
rally understood  both  by  ancient  and  modern 
commentators  as  teaching  the  doctrine  that  we 
are  born  in  a  state  of  sin  and  condemnation.  If 
we  are  children  of  wrath  by  nature,  we  must 
have  been  horn  in  that  condition  ;  and  if  born 
children  of  wrath,  we  must  have  been  born  in  sin. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  among 
others  may  be  referred  to :  Gen.  vi.  5.  "  And 
God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great 
in  the  earth,  and  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."  This  is 
descriptive  not  of  one  man  only,  but  of  the  race  ; 
and  how  can  this  universal  corruption  be  ac- 
counted for  except  on  the  principle  of  original 
sin  ?  Job  xiv.  4.  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean  ?  not  one."  If,  then,  parents 
are  "  unclean,"  if  they  are  universally  sinful,  chil^ 
dren  inherit  from  them  the  same  character.  Ps. 
Ii.  5.  "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in 
sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  This  is  an  ex- 
press declaration  that  the  Psalmist  was  conceived 
in  sin  ;  and  if  it  was  true  of  him,  it  is  true  of  all 
others.    These  three  passages  taken  in  connex- 


Proofs  and  Remarks.  89 

ion  form  a  complete  syllogism  in  support  of  this 
doctrine.  If  the  first  of  them  is  applicable  to  all 
mankind,  as  appears  from  the  similarity  of  that 
description,  and  those  given  by  David  and  Paul ; 
and  if  the  two  latter  exhibit  the  fountain  from 
which  the  evil  imaginations  of  the  heart  take  their 
rise,  as  they  appear  clearly  to  indicate  ;  then  all 
men  possess  a  depraved  and  sinful  nature,  inher- 
ited from  their  parents. 

As  the  chief  object  of  the  present  volume  is  to 
exhibit  the  difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
Theology,  we  have  not  thought  it  expedient  to 
enter  largely  upon  the  proofs  in  favor  of  the  form- 
er. But  what  has  been  adduced  is  sufficient,  we 
think,  to  shew  the  truth  of  the  Old  system,  in  op- 
position to  the  New,  and  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  in- 
dex to  a  more  minute  and  extensive  examination 
of  the  subject. 

Before  closing  the  chapter  we  will  make  a  few 
remarks  on  the  charge  of  injustice  which  is 
brought  against  the  views  entertained  by  the  Old 
School  divines  with  regard  to  this  subject.  We 
believe  it  to  be  wholly  unfounded ;  but  against 
the  opposite  theory,  it  might  be  made  to  lie  with 
great  force.  Does  any  one  pronounce  it  unjust 
for  a  man  to  be  held  liable  for  a  debt  contracted 
by  one  of  his  ancestors,  provided  in  becoming  his 
heir,  that  was  made  one  of  the  legal  conditions 
by  which  he  should  inherit  his  estate  ?     But  sup- 


90  Our  connexion  with  Adam, 

pose  he  had  no  legal  connexion  with  him  at  all,, 
but  simply  the  relation  of  natural  descent — 
which,  according  to  the  New  School  doctrine,  is 
our  only  connexion  with  Adam — where  would 
be  tlie  justice  in  holding  him  responsible  for  the 
payment  of  his  ancestor's  debts  ?  He  sustains  ta 
him,  remember,  no  legal  connection,  but  is  held 
responsible,  merely  because  he  is  his  descendant. 
Is  this  just  ? — Since  then  all  are  obliged  to  admit 
that  we  suffer  evils  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  why  not  adopt  the  scripture  doctrine,  that  be- 
ing included  with  him  in  the  covenant  of  worksy 
we  became  legally  involved  in  the  ruin  brought 
upon  the  world  by  his  sin  ?  This  covenant  or 
legal  connection,  renders  it  just  that  we  should 
inherit  these  calamities — but  on  any  other  princi- 
ple their  infliction  upon  us  can  not  be  easily  ex- 
plained, without  bearing  painfully  upon  the  justice 
©f  God's  dispensations. 

Such  is  the  organization  of  human  govern- 
ments, that  we  are  usually  connected  in  law  with 
those  from  whom,  we  have  descended — and  there- 
is  a  fitness  and  propriety  in  this  arrangements 
Hence,  unless  special  provision  is  made  to  the- 
contrary,  the  natural  descendant  becomes  the 
legal  heir.  Such  also  is  the  Divine  economy  with 
regard  to  man.  The  appointment  of  Adam  as 
our  federal  head  was  not  altogether  arbitrary,  as 
it  would  have  been,  had  he  been  appointed  the 
federal  head  of  angels-— but  it  was  according  to 


Observations  and  Remarks.  91 

the  fitness  of  things.  Hence  our  natural  relation 
is  made  use  of  as  the  medium  of  bringing  about 
those  results,  which  have  their  origin  in  our  fede- 
ral relation.  Original  sin  flows  to  us  through  the 
chahnel  of  natural  descent — and  various  evils 
which  now  flow  from  parent  to  child,  descend  in 
the  same  way : — but  their  foundation  must  be 
traced  back  to  the  covenant  made  with  our  first 
father,  as  the  representative  of  his  posterity  ;  the 
guilt  of  whose  first  sin  being  imputed  to  us,  a 
corrupt  and  depraved  nature  and  other  penal 
evils  follow  as  the  consequence.  Is  any  one  dis- 
posed to  say,  I  never  gave  my  consent  to  that 
covenant,  and  therefore  it  is  unjust  to  punish  me 
for  its  violation  ?  We  ask  in  return,  whether  the 
individual  whose  case  has  been  supposed,  gave 
his  consent  that  his  ancestor  should  leave  the  es- 
tate which  he  has  inherited  from  him,  encumber- 
ed with  debt  ?  And  yet,  no  sane  man  would 
ever  think  of  calling  in  question  the  propriety  of 
his  being  held  responsible.  If,  however,  he  had 
no  legal  connexion  with  that  ancestor,  his  natu- 
ral relation  would  not  be  sufficient  to  bind  him. 
He  is  his  heir,  noi  merely  because  he  has  descend- 
ed from  him,  but  because  the  law  of  the  land  has 
made  him  such.  The  latter  and  not  the  former, 
imposes  upon  him  the  Habilities  which  his  ances- 
tor incurred ;  and  thougli  he  never  gave  his 
consent,  he  regards  it  as  just  and  right. 


CHAP.  V. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  justification  through  him. 

The  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  sufferings  are 
generally  described  by  theological  writers  of  the 
present  day,  under  the  name  of  atonement — a 
term  not  found  in  our  standards,  and  but  once  in 
the  English  version  of  the  New  Testament.  For 
a  considerable  time  after  the  Reformation,  the 
mediatorial  work  of  Christ  was  commonly  ex- 
pressed by  the  words,  reconciliation,  redemption 
and  satisfaction :  which  are  the  terms  employed 
in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  This  accounts  for 
the  fact  that  the  word  atonement  does  not  occur 
in  that  volume.  The  mere  use  of  a  term  is  of 
little  consequence,  provided  the  true  doctrine  is 
retained.  But  many  have  not  only  laid  aside  the 
ancient  phraseology,  but  with  it,  all  that  is  valua- 
ble in  the  atonement  itself.  Instead  of  allowing 
it  to  be  any  proper  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice, 
by  which  a  righteous  and  holy  God  is  propitiated  ; 
some  affirm  that  it  was  designed  merely  to  make 
an  impression  on  intelligent  beings  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God,  and  thus  opening  the  way  for 
pardon — and  others,  that  it  was  intended  only  to 
produce  a  change  in  the  sinner  himself  by  the  in- 
fluence which  the  scenes  of  Calvary  are  calcula- 


Explanatory  Remarks.  93 

ted  to  exert  on  his  mind.  The  latter  is  the  So- 
cinian  view,  and  the  second  tliat  of  the  New 
School. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  view  first  allu- 
ded to,  includes  the  other  two.  While  it  regards 
the  atonement  as  primarily  intended  to  satisfy 
the  justice  of  God,  by  answering  the  demands,  and 
suffering  the  penalty  of  his  law,  it  was  designed 
and  adapted  to  make  a  strong  impression  both 
upon  the  universe  and  upon  the  sinner  himself. 
But  though  the  first  view  includes  the  others  as 
the  greater  does  the  less,  these  do  not  include  the 
first,  but  reject  it.  By  making  the  atonement 
consist  wholly  in  the  second  or  third  view,  there 
is  involved  a  denial  that  Christ  endured  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law,  or  assumed  any  legal  responsibil- 
ity in  our  behalf,  or  made  any  satisfaction,  strictly 
speaking,  to  the  justice  of  God — thus  giving  up 
what  has  been  regarded  by  most  if  not  all  evan- 
gelical churches  since  the  Reformation,  as  essen- 
tial to  the  atonement. 

We  wish  to  observe  farther,  by  way  of  expla- 
nation, that  by  Christ's  enduring  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  is  not  meant  that  he  endured  literally  the 
same  suffering  either  in  kind  ov  duration  vfMioh 
would  have  been  inflicted  upon  the  sinner,  if  a 
Savior  had  not  been  provided.  In  a  penalty, 
some  things  are  essential — others  incidental.  It 
was  essential  to  the  penalty,  that  Christ  should 


94  The  Sufferings  of  Christ. 

suffer  a  violent  and  ignominious  death — but 
whether  he  should  die  by  decapitation  or  by  cru- 
cifixion, was  incidental.  It  was  essential  that  he 
should  suffer  for  our  sins—bni  how  long  his  suf- 
ferings should  continue,  was  incidental.  If  inflict- 
ed upon  us,  they  must  necessarily  be  eternal — be- 
cause sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  finite  beings  can- 
not endure  the  punishment  which  is  due  to  it  ex- 
cept by  an  eternal  duration.  But  from  the  infinite 
dignity  of  Christ's  character,  the  penal  demands 
of  the  law  could  be  fully  answered  by  his  suffer- 
ing ever  so  short  a  time.  A  similar  remark  may 
be  made  concerning  the  remorse  of  conscience 
which  forms  a  part  of  the  torments  of  the  wicked. 
The  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ  does  not  in- 
volve a  transfer  of  moral  character,  but  only  of 
legal  responsibility.  In  being  "  made  sin  for  us," 
Christ  did  not  become  personally  a  sinner — but 
"  was  holy  and  harmless  and  undefiled."  Of  course 
he  could  have  no  remorse  of  conscience,  such  as  a 
convicted  sinner  suffers  in  view  of  his  guilt.  But 
this  is  merely  incidental,  and  depends  upon  cir- 
cumstances. Some  sinners  never  appear  to  feel 
remorse  at  all — and  no  sinner,  probably,  feels  it 
at  all  times.  What  is  intended  then  by  Christ's 
suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute 
is,  that  in  law  he  assumed  our  place,  and  endured 
all  that  was  essential  in  its  penal  demands — where- 
by he  fully  satisfied  Divine  justice,  that  those  who 


Views  of  Dr.  Bemaiu  95 

are  united  to  him  by  faith,  are,  as  an  act  oi  justice 
to  Christ,  but  of  free  unbounded  mercy  to  them^ 
"  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the  law,"  he  "  being 
made  a  curse  for  them."  This  doctrine,  the  Old 
Theology  maintains — the  New  denies. 

The  following  quotations  will  exemplify  the 
New  School  views.  Dr.  Beman,*  in  his  "  Sermons 
on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,"  observes : 
(p.  34,)  "  The  law  can  have  no  penal  demand  ex- 
cept against  the  offender.  With  a  substitute  it 
has  no  concern  ;  and  though  a  thousand  substi- 
tutes should  die,  the  law,  in  itself  considered  and 
left  to  its  own  natural  operation,  would  have  the 
sam.e  demand  upon  the  transgressor  which  it  always 
had.  This  claim  can  never  be  invalidated.  This 
penal  demand  can  never  be  extinguished."  Speak- 
ing of  those  W' ho  entertain  opposite  views,  he  says, 
(p.  45,)  "  They  contend  that  the  real  penahy  of 
the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ ;  and  at  the  same 
time  acknowledge  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  not  the  same,  either  in  nature  or  degree,  as 
those  sufferings  which  were  threatened  against 
the  transgressor.  The  words  of  our  text  [Gal. 
iii.  13,]  are  considered  by  many  as  furnishing  un- 
equivocal testimony  to  the  fact,  that  Christ  endu- 


*Dr.  Beman  has  not,  I  believe,  published  his  sentiments  on 
the  other  points  embraced  in  the  New  Theology,  and  therefore 
I  cannot  state  with  certainty  what  they  are. 


.%  The  Sufferings  of  Christ. 

red  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  room  of  his  peo- 
ple.    "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."     But  it  is,  in 
no  shape,  asserted  here,  that  Christ  suffered  the 
penalty  of  the  law.     The  apostle  tells  us  in  what 
sense  he  was  "  made  a  curse  for  us."    "  Cursed  is 
€very  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."     Believers  are 
saved  from  the  curse  or  penalty  of  the  law  by  the 
consideration,  that   Christ  was   "  made  a  curse" 
for  them  in  another  and  a  very  diiferent  sense. 
He  was  "  made  a  curse"  inasmuch  as  he  suffered, 
in  order  to  open  the  door  of  hope  to  man,  the 
pains  and  ignominy  of  crucifixion.     He  hung  upon 
a  tree.     He  died  as  a  malefactor.     He  died  as 
one  accursed."     In  a  note  on  the  next  page,  with 
reference  to  some  remarks  in  a  sermon  by  Dr. 
Dana,  of  Londonderry,  he  observes  :  "  But  why 
is  it   necessary  to  support  the  position,  that  the 
curse  of  the  law  was  inflicted  on  Christ  ?     If  it 
should  be  said,  that  the  Divine  veracity  was  pledg- 
ed to  execute  the  law — we  reply  that  the  Divine 
veracity  can  find  no  support  in  that  kind  of  inflic- 
tion of  the  curse  which  is  here  supposed.     A  sub- 
stantial execution  of  the  law — an  endurance  of  the 
penalty  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case  admitted 
or  required — an  infliction  of  suffering,  not  upon 
the  transgressor,  hut  upon  a  surety,  when  the  law 
had  not  made  the  most  distant  allusion  to  a  surety, 
certainly  has  much  more  the  appearance  o^  eva- 


Dr.  Bemaris  Views.  97 

sion  than  execution  of  the  law."  He  says,  (p.  51,) 
"  As  to  imputation,  we  do  deny  that  the  sins  of 
men,  or  of  any  part  of  our  race,  were  so  transferr- 
ed to  Christ,  that  they  became  his  sins,  or  were 
so  reckoned  to  him,  that  he  sustained  their  legal  re- 
sponsibilities."* Again,  (p.  68,)  "  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  character  of  Christ's  sufferings  which 
can  affect  or  modify  the  penalty  of  the  law. 
These  sufferings  were  not  legal.  They  constitu- 
ted no  part  of  that  curse  which  was  threatened 
against  the  transgressor." 

What  then,  according  to  him,  was  the  iiature 
of  Christ's  sufferings  ?  He  says,  (p.  35,  36,) 
"  He  suffered  and  died  the  just  for  the  unjust  ;" 
"  and  those  sufferings  which  he  endured  as  a  holy 
being,  were  intended,  in  the  case  of  all  those  who 
are  finally  saved,  as  a  substitute  for  the  infliction 
of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  We  say  a  substitute  for 
the  infliction  of  the  penalty ;  for  the  penalty  itself, 
if  it  be  executed  at  all,  must  fall  upon  the  sinner, 
and  upon  no  one  else."  Again,  (p.  50,  51,)  "The 
atonement  was  a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the 
penalty  of  the  law — or  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  a  substitute  for  the  punishment  of  sinners." 
"  This  is  vicarious  suffering.     It  is  the  suf- 


*  The  Old  Theology  does  not  maintain  that  our  sins  "be 
came  his  sins"— but  only  that  he  sustained  our  legal  responsi- 
bilities. 

I 


98  The  Sufferings  of  Christ 

fering  of  Christ  in  the  place  of  the  endless  suffer- 
ing of  the  sinner."  Once  more  :  (p.  64,  65 ;) 
"  The  penalty  of  the  law,  strictly  speaking,  was 
not  inflicted  at  all ;  for  this  penalty,  in  which  was 
[were]  embodied  the  principles  of  distributive  jus- 
tice, required  the  death  of  the  simier,  and  did  not 
require  the  death  of  Christ.  As  a  substitute  for 
the  infliction  of  this  penalty,  God  did  accept  of 
the  sufferings  of  His  Son." 

Was  there  then  no  satisfaction  made  to  Divine 
justice  ?  Says  Dr.  Beman,  (p.  65,)  "  The  law,  or 
justice,  that  is,  distributive  justice,  as  expressed  in 
the  law,  has  received  no  satisfaction  at  all.  The 
whole  legal  system  has  been  suspended,  at  least, 
for  the  present,  in  order  to  make  way  for  the  op- 
eration of  one  of  a  different  character.  In  intro- 
ducing this  system  of  mercy,  which  involves  a 
suspension  of  the  penal  curse,  God  has  required 
a  satisfaction  to  the  principles  of  general  or  pub- 
lic justice — a  satisfaction  w^hich  will  effectually 
secure  all  the  good  to  the  universe  which  is  inten- 
ded to  be  accomplished  by  the  penalty  of  the  law 
when  inflicted,  and,  at  the  same  time,  prevent  all 
that  practical  mischief  which  would  result  from  ar- 
resting the  hand  of  punitive  justice  without  the  in- 
tervention of  an  atonement."  But  what  does  he 
mean  by  ^^  general  or  public  justice  ?"  He  says^ 
(p.  63,  64,)  "  It  has  no  direct  reference  to  law,  but 
embraces  those  principles  of  virtue  or  benevo- 


Dr.  Beman^s  Views.  99 

lence  by  which  we  are  bound  to  govern  our  con- 
duct ;  and  by  which  God  Himself  governs  the 
universe.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  terms  "just" 
and  "  righteousness"  occur   in  our  text.     [Rom. 

iii.  26.] "  This   atonement  was   required, 

that  God  might  be  "just,"  or  righteous,  that  is,  that 
He  might  do  the  thing  which  was  fit  and  proper, 
and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done  ;  and  at 
the  same  time  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  justify  "  him 
which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

Let  me  now  inquire,  is  this  what  is  meant  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  where  it  reads,  "  The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and 
sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he  through  the  Eternal 
Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath/wZ/y  satis- 
jiecl  the  justice  of  his  Father  V  We  think  not. 
No  intimation  of  this  kind  is  given.  The  framers 
of  our  Standards  do  not  appear  to  have  learned 
that  God  governs  the  universe  by  one  kind  of  jus- 
tice, viz.  by  the  "  principles  of  virtue  or  benevo- 
lence ;"  and  punishes  sinners  for  rebelhng  against 
His  government,  by  another  and  a  different  kind, 
viz.  the  justice  which  is  "  expressed  in  the  law." 
Are  these  two  kinds  of  justice  in  conflict  with 
each  other  ?  or  is  not  God's  justice  "  as  express- 
ed in  the  law,"  the  same  kind  of  justice  by  which 
He  "  governs  the  universe  ?"  Was  not  the  law 
founded  on  the  "  principles  of  virtue  or  benevo- 
lence ?"    Why  then  could  not  Jehovah  exhibit 


100  The  Sufferings  of  ChrisL 

those  principles,  by  the  obedience  and  sacrifice  of 
Christ  in  our  behalf,  in  conformity  to  the  law  T 
"  But  when  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  His  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  un- 
der the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the 
law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons," 
Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  Does  this  mean  that  those  "  under 
the  law,"  were  exposed  to  the  retribution  of  one 
kind  of  justice  ;  and  that  Christ,  who  w^as  "made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them,"  rendered  satis- 
faction to  another  and  a  different  kind  ? — to  a  spe- 
cies of  justice  unknown  to  the  law,  and  contrary 
to  it  ?  Does  not  the  law  embody  those  things 
which  "  are  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most  ex- 
pedient to  be  done?"  If  so,  why  was  it  necessa- 
ry to  "  suspend"  h,  in  order  to  introduce  a  code 
of  justice,  which  "  has  no  direct  reference  to  law," 
but  belongs  to  a  system  possessing  "  a  different 
character  ?" 

These  positions,  it  appears  to  me,  involve  the 
sentiment,  that  the  Divine  government  and  law, 
as  the  former  is  now  administered,  are  not  in  har- 
mony with  each  other — that  the  government  of 
God  could  not  be  administered  according  to  the 
"  principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence,"  in  a  man- 
ner "fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most  expedient 
to  be  done" — without  a  suspension  of  "  the  whole 
legal  system ;"  or  which  is  the  same  thing,  a  dis- 
regard of  His  law.    And  if  the  atonement  pro- 


Dr.  Beman's  Views.  101 

ceeded  on  this  principle,  we  can  not  perceive 
why  it  might  not  have  been  dispensed  with  alto- 
gether— for  if"  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  not  in- 
flicted at  all,"  but  a  system  was  introduced 
"  which  involves  a  suspension  of  the  legal  curse," 
why  might  not  God  as  moral  Governor,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  "  virtue  or  benevolence,  by  which 
He  governs  the  universe,"  and  in  pursuance  of 
what  "  was  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most  ex- 
pedient to  be  done,"  have  suspended  "  the  whole 
legal  system,"  and  extended  pardon  to  sinners 
without  an  atonement  ? 

Dr.  Beman  assigns  three  reasons  why  the  atone- 
ment was  necessary  ;  all  of  which  lose  their  force 
on  the  supposition  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  He  says,  "  the  atonement 
was  necessary  as  an  expression  of  God's  regard 
for  the  moral  law."  But  how  could  it  express 
His  regard  for  the  law,  provided  the  law  has  re- 
ceived no  satisfaction  at  all,  "  but  the  whole  legal 
system  was  suspended  in  order  to  make  way  for 
the  operation  of  one,"  which  "  has  no  direct  ref- 
erence to  law?"  Again  he  says,  "  the  atonement 
was  necessary  in  order  to  evince  the  Divine  de- 
termination to  punish  sin,  or  to  execute  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law."  On  the  principle  that  Christ 
acted  as  our  surety,  and  sustained  in  our  stead 
those  penal  evils  which  were  essential  to  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  threatening  contained  in  the  law, 


102  The  Sufferings  of  Christ, 

we  can  perceive  how  "  the  Divine  determination 
to  punish  sin"  was  evinced.  Not  so  however,  if 
we  "  deny  that  the  sins  of  men  were  so  reckoned 
to  Christ,  that  he  sustained  their  legal  responsi- 
bilities ;"  and  view  the  atonement  as  "  a  system 
of  mercy,"  in  which  the  "  sufferings  of  Christ  were 
not  legal,  and  constituted  no  part  of  that  curse 
which  was  threatened  against  the  transgressor." 
This  makes  the  atonement  an  entire  departure 
from  law,  and  could  therefore  never  be  adduced 
to  show  that  God  has  determined  to  execute  its 
penalty. 

The  other  reason  which  he  assigns  for  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  atonement,  is  Hable,  on  his  princi- 
ples, to  the  same  objection.  "  The  necessity  of 
the  atonement,  (says  lie,)  will  fartherappear,if  we 
contemplate  the  relations  of  this  doctrine  with  the 

rational  universe." "  We   may  naturally 

suppose,  that  it  was  the  intention  of  God,  in  sav- 
ing sinners,  to  make  a  grand  impression  upon  the 
universe." "  What  effect  would  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners  without  an  atonement,  probably 
have  upon  the  angels  of  heaven  ?"...."  This 
example  has  taught  them  to  revere  the  law,  and 
to  expect  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  upon  every 
transgressor." '*  Eveiy  angel  feels  the  im- 
pression which  this  public  act  is  calculated  to 
make  ;  and  while  he  dreads,  with  a  new  sensation^ 
the  penalty,  he  clings  more  closely  to  the  precept 


Dr.  BemarCs  Views.  103 

of  the  law.  But  suppose  the  provisions  of  this 
law  were  entirely  set  aside,  in  our  w^orld,  as 
would  be  the  case  if  sinful  men  were  to  be  saved 
without  an  atonement,  and,  in  the  estimation  of 
fallen  angels,  you  create  war  between  God  and 
his  own  eternal  law." 

Let  me  now  ask,  are  not  "  the  provisions  of  the 
law  entirely  set  aside  in  our  world,"  according  to 
his  scheme  ?  Not,  it  is  true,  "  by  saving  sinful  men 
without   an   atonement ;"    but   by   saving   them 
through  that  ^mt?  of  atonement,  which  *'hasno  di- 
rect reference  to  law,"  and  "  involves  a  suspension 
of  its  legal   curse."     If  the   law  "  has   no   con- 
cern with  a  substitute  ;"  and  if  Christ's  "  sufferings 
constituted   no   part  of  that   curse,  which   was 
threatened  against  the  transgressor ;"  how  can  a 
view  of  his  sufferings  teach  the  angels  "  to  revere 
the  law,  and  to  expect  the  infliction  of  the  penal- 
ty upon  every  transgressor  ?"     Would  it  not,  on 
the  contrary,  produce  the  impression  that  the  law 
was  given  up ;  and  its  "  provisions  entirely  set 
aside  in  our  world  ?"  and  if  this  would  be  the  im- 
pression upon  holy  angels,  it  would  be  the  same 
upon  devils.     To  use  his  own  language,  "  in  the 
estimation  of  fallen  angels,  you  create  war  be- 
tween God  and  his  own  eternal  law."     On  the 
principle  that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the 
law  as  our  substitute,  all  is  plain — but  if  not,  nei- 
ther man  nor  angel  can  tell  satisfactorily,  how 


1 04  The  Sufferings  of  Christ. 

"  God  can  be  just  while  he  justifies  him  that  be- 
heveth ;"  or  why,  if  he  can  be  just,  in  bestowing 
pardon  with  an  atonement,  he  might  not  be  just  in 
bestowing  it  without  any. 

Another  work  on  the  atonement,  said  to  have 
been  founded  on  Dr.  Beman's  Sermons,  has  been 
pubhshed  in  England,  by  Mr.  Jenkyn,  and  re-pub- 
lished in  this  country  w^ith  an  introductory  recom- 
mendation by  Dr.  Carroll.  On  these  two  ac- 
counts it  may  be  properly  referred  to  as  a  speci- 
men of  the  New  Views.*  Mr.  Jenkyn  introduces 
seven  arguments  to  prove  that  Christ  did  not  suf- 
fer the  penalty  of  the  law — but  that  his  suflferings 
were  a  substitute  for  the  penalty.  According  to 
him,  the  very  idea  of  an  atonement  involves  a 
suspension  of  the  penalty.  "  An  atonement,  (says 
he,)  is  a  measure  or  an  expedient,  that  is  a  satis- 


*  Concerning  Dr.  Beman's  Discourses,  Mr,  Jenkyn  says : 
"  This  little  work  is  a  rich  nursery  of  what  Lord  Bacon  calls 
*  The  seeds  of  things.'  It  abounds  in  living  theological  princi- 
pies,  each  of  which,  if  duly  cultivated  and  reared,  would  unfold 
great  and  ample  truths,  illustrative  of  this  great  doctrine."  Con- 
cerning  Jenkyn's  work,  Dr.  Carroll  uses  similar  language: 
*'  Asa  treatise,  (says  he,)  on  the  grand  re/fji/ons  of  the  atonement, 
it  is  a  book  which  may  be  emphatically  said  to  contain  '  the 
seeds  of  things' — the  elements  of  mightier  and  nobler  combina- 
tions of  thought  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  than  any 

modern  production." "  We  believe  that  its  influence 

on  the  opinions  of  theological  students  and  ministers  will  be 
great  and  salutary,  beyond  computation." 


Views  of  Mr,  Jenkyn.  105 

faction  for  the  suspension  of  the  threatened  pen- 
alty. A  suspension  or  a  non-execution  of  the  lit- 
eral threatening  is  always  implied  in  an  atone- 
ment." P.  25.  "  If  a  man  transgress  a  law,  he 
must,  in  a  just  and  firm  government,  be  punished. 
Why  ?  Lest  others  have  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law 
and  transgress  it  too.  But  suppose  that  this  end 
of  the  law  be  secured  without  punishing  the  trans- 
gressor ;  suppose  that  a  measure  shall  be  devis- 
ed by  the  governor,  which  shall  save  the  criminal, 
and  yet  keep  men  from  having  a  bad  opinion  of 
the  law.  Why,  in  such  a  case,  all  would  approve 
of  it,  both  on  the  score  of  justice  and  on  the  score 
of  benevolence.  For  public  justice  only  requires 
that  men  should  be  kept  from  haying  such  a  bad 
opinion  of  the  law  as  to  break  it.  If  this  can  be  done 
without  inflicting  what,  in  distributive  justice,  is  due 
to  the  criminal,  public  justice  is  satisfied,  because 
its  ends  are  fully  answered.  The  death  of  Christ 
secures  this  end."  P.  140, 1.  Again  :  "  The  truth  of 
any  proposition  or  declaration,  consists  more  in  the 
spirit  than  in  the  letter  of  it.  Truth  in  a  promise, 
and  truth  in  a  threatening,  are  different,  especial- 
ly in  measures  of  government.  Truth  in  a  prom- 
ise obliges  the  promisor  to  perform  his  word,  or 
else  to  be  regarded  as  unfaithful  and  false.  But 
truth  in  a  threatening  does  not,  in  the  administra- 
tion of.  discipline  or  government,  actually  oblige 
to  literal  execution ;  it  only  makes  the  punish- 


106  The  Sufferings  of  Christ. 

ment  to  be  due  and  admissible.  A  threatened 
penalty  does  not  deprive  the  lawgiver  of  his  sove- 
reign and  supra  legal  power  to  dispense  with  it,  if 
he  can  secure  the  ends  of  it  by  any  other  measure." 
'.  .  .  "  This  supra  legal  prerogative  of  sus- 
pending punishment,  God  has  exercised  in  many 
instances,  as  in  the  sparing  of  Nineveh,  and  I  be- 
lieve in  the  sparing  of  our  first  parents.  The 
identical  penalty  of  the  Eden  constitution  was  not 
literally  executed,  either  on  man  or  on  Christ. 
It  was  not  executed  on  man,  for  then  there  would 
have  been  no  human  race.  The  first  pair  would  have 
been  destroyed,  and  mankind  would  never  have 
come  into  being.  It  was  not  executed  on  Christ. 
He  did  no  sin  ;  he  violated  no  constitution,  and  yet 
he  died.  Surely  no  law  or  constitution  under 
which  he  was,  could  legally  visit  him  with  a  pen- 
alty. If  it  be  said  that  he  suffered  it  for  others, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  immutable  verity  as 
much  requires  that  the  penalty  should  be  inflicted 
on  the  literal  sinner  only,  as  that  it  should  be  in- 
flicted at  all."     P.  64,  65. 

In  addition  to  the  remarks  already  made  on 
Dr.  Beman's  views,  which  will  answer  equally 
well  for  those  of  Mr.  Jenkyn,  we  wish  to  notice 
a  sentiment  not  before  alluded  to.  It  is  contain- 
ed in  the  last  paragraph  quoted  from  Jenkyn,  and 
is  as  follows,  viz.  that  though  God  is  bound  to 
fulfil  his  promises,  he  is  not  bound  to  execute  his 


Views  of  Mr.  Jenkyn.  107 

threatenings.  This  distinction  is  resorted  to  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  difficuhy,  that  if  God 
does  not  inflict  the  penalty  of  the  law  either  on 
the  sinner  or  upon  Christ  as  his  substitute,  his 
veracity  is  thereby  impeached.  We  admit  that 
the  Divine  veracity  does  not  require  the  execution 
of  a  conditional  threatening,  as  in  the  case  of 
Nineveh  ;  but  no  one  will  pretend  that  God's 
law  threatened  punishment  for  disobedience  con- 
ditionally.  The  moment  the  law  was  violated, 
the  transgressor  fell  under  the  curse.  And  he 
must  either  endure  it  eternalty,  or  be  released  by 
having  satisfation  paid  to  Divine  justice  in  some 
other  way.  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continu- 
eth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them."  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  there- 
of, thou  shalt  surely  die."  Accordingly,  as  soon 
as  Adam  transgressed  he  began  to  feel  the  curse. 
He  lost  God's  image  and  favor — he  became  spir- 
itually dead — and  he  would  have  suffered  tempo- 
ral and  eternal  death,  had  they  not  been  averted 
by  the  interposition  of  a  substitute.*  The  penal- 
ty of  the  law  must  be  substantially  executed. 


+  It  is  sometimes  said  that  God  did  not  execute  his  threaten- 
ing upon  Adam,  because  he  did  not  die  a  temporal  death  that  very 
day.  But  the  threatening  began  to  be  inflicted  that  very  day — 
and  this  Was  all  which  was  intended  by  it.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case,  eternal  death  cannot  be  inflicted  in  a  rfaj/,  because  it  re- 


108  The  Sufferings  of  Christ. 

"  Die  he  or  justice  must,  unless  for  him 
"  Some  other  able  and  as  willing,  pay 
"The rigid  satisfaction — death  for  death." 

If  God  is  not  bound  to  fulfil  his  threatenings, 
how  can  it  be  proved  that  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  will  be  eternal  1  Though  it  is  distinctly 
and  frequently  asserted  in  the  Bible  that  such 
will  be  the  doom  of  the  finally  impenitent,  yet  if 
God's  veracity  does  not  require  the  execution  of 
this  threatening,  there  is  no  certainty  that  it  will 
be  inflicted :  nay,  there  is  much  reason  to  be- 
lieve the  contrary ;  because  if  there  is  nothing  in 
God's  character,  or  law,  which  requires  him  to 
punish  sin,  we  may  be  sure  that  his  infinite  good- 
ness will  lead  him  to  release  the  sinner  from  con- 
demnation ;  and  thus,  atonement  or  no  atone- 
ment, all  mankind  will  be  saved.  But  if  the  na- 
ture of  God  requires  him  to  punish  sin,  and  if 
when  he  has  threatened  to  punish  it,  his  veracity 
requires  him  to  execute  that  threatening  ;  then 
either  Christ  endured  what  v/as  essential  in  the 
penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute,  or  our  union 
to  him  by  faith  cannot  shelter  us  from  its  penal 
demands.  Its  threatenings  still  lie  against  us ; 
and  must  ere  long  be  inflicted.     It  is  not  true. 


quires  an  endless  duration.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  wicked  in 
hell,  it  has  only  he^un  to  be  inflicted — and  yet  who  doubts  that 
they  are  suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law  ? 


Views  of  Mr,  Barnes,  109 

therefore,  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  He  is  not  "  an  hiding 
place  from  the  wind ;  a  covert  from  the  tempest." 
Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  sermon  on  the  way  of  Sal- 
vation and  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  gives  sub- 
stantially the  same  view  of  the  atonement  with 
Dr.  Beman  and  Mr,  Jenkyn.  But  in  another 
production  of  his,  viz.  an  Introductory  Essay  to 
Butler's  Analogy,  which  was  first  published  in 
the  Christian  Spectator,  and  afterwarxis  prefixed 
to  a  new  edition  of  the  Analogy,  he  presents  the 
subject  in  a  manner  still  more  exceptionable.  If 
r  mistake  not,  it  is  such  a  view  as  any  Unitarian 
in  the  United  States  would  subscribe  to.  His 
language  is  as  follows :  "  Now,  in  recurring  to 
the  analogy  of  nature,  we  have  only  to  ask, 
whether  calamities  which  are  hastening  to  fall  on 
us,  are  ever  put  back  by  the  intervention  of 
another  1  Are  there  any  cases  in  which  either 
our  own  crimes  or  the  manifest  judgments  of 
•God,  are  bringing  ruin  upon  us,  where  that  ruin 
is  turned  aside  by  the  interposition  of  others? 
Now  we  at  once  cast  our  eyes  backward  to  all 
the  helpless  and  dangerous  periods  of  our  being. 
Did  God  come  forth  directly,  and  protect  us  in 
the  defenceless  period  of  infancy '?  Who  watch- 
ed over  the  sleep  of  the  cradle,  and  guarded  us 
in  sickness  and  helplessness  ?  It  was  the  tender- 
ness of  a  mother  bending  over  our  slumbering 

K 


110         Atonement — Neio  School  Views, 

childhood,  foregoing  sleep,  and  rest,  and  ease, 
and  hailing  toil  and  care  that  we  might  be  defend- 
ed.    Why  then  is  it  strange,  that  when  God  thus 
ushers  us  into  existence  through  the  pain  and  toil  of 
another,  that  he  should  convey  the  blessings  of  a 
higher  existence  by  the  groans  and  pangs  of  a 
higher  Mediator?      God   gives  us    knowledge. 
But  does  he  come  forth  to  teach  us  by  inspira- 
tion, or  guide  us  by  his  own  hand  to  the  foun- 
tains of  wisdom  ?     It  is  by  years  of  patient  toil 
in  others,  that  we  possess  the  elements  of  science, 
the  principles  of  morals,  the  endownents  of  reli- 
gion.    He  gives  us  food    and  raiment.     Is  the 
Great  Parent  of  benevolence  seen  clothing  us  by 
his   own   hand,  or   ministering   directly   to   our 
wants  ?     Who  makes  provisions  for  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  feebleness,  gaiety  or  idleness  ?  Who 
but  the  care-worn  and  anxious  father  and  mother, 
who  toil  that  their  offspring  may  receive  these 
benefits  from  their  hands.     Why  then  may  not 
the  garments  of  salvation  and  the  manna  of  life, 
come  through  a  higher  Mediator,  and  be  the  fruit 
of  severer  toil  and  sufferings  ?     Heaven's  highest, 
richest  benefits  are  thus  conveyed  to  the  race 
through  thousands  of  hands  acting  as  mediums 
between  man  and  God.     It  is  thus  through  the 
instrumentahty  of  others,  that  the  great  Giver  of 
life  breathes  health  into  our  bodies,  and  vigor  in- 
to our  frames.     And  whv  should  he  not  reach 


Quotations  from  Mr.  Barnes,  111 

also  the  sick  and  weary  mind — the  soul  languish- 
ing under  a  long  and  wretched  disease,  by  the 
hand  of  a  mediator  ?  Why  should  he  not  kindle 
the  glow  of  spiritual  health  on  the  wan  cheek, 
and  infuse  celestial  hfe  into  our  veins,  by  him 
who  is  the  great  Physician  of  our  souls  ?  The 
very  earth,  air,  waters,  are  all  channels  for  con- 
veying blessings  to  us  from  God.  Why  then 
should  the  infidel  stand  back,  and  all  sinners 
frown,  when  w^e  claim  the  same  thing  in  redemp- 
tion, and  affirm  that  in  this  great  concern,  "  there 
is  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all." 
"  But  still  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  not  an 
atonement.  We  admit  it.  We  maintain  only 
that  it  vindicates  the  main  principle  of  atonement, 
and  shows  that  it  is  according  to  a  general  lawj 
that  God  imparts  spiritual  blessings  to  us  through 
a  Mediator.  What,  we  ask,  is  the  precise  objec- 
tionable point  in  the  atonement,  if  it  be  not  that 
God  aids  us  in  our  sins  and  woes,  by  the  self-de- 
nial and  sufferings  of  another  ?  And  we  ask, 
whether  there  is  any  thing  so  peculiar  in  such  a 
system,  as  to  make  it  intrinsically  absurd  and  in- 
credible ?  Now  we  think  there  is  nothing  more 
universal  and  indisputable  than  a  system  of  na- 
ture like  this.  God  has  made  the  whole  animal 
world  tributary  to  man.  And  it  is  by  the  toil 
and  pain  of  creation,  that  our  wants  are  supplied, 


112         Atonement — New  School  Views. 

our  appetites  gratified,  our  bodies  sustained,  our 
sickness  alleviated — that  is,  the  impending  evils 
of  labor,  famine,  or  disease  are  put  away  by  these 
substituted  toils  and  privations.  By  the  blood  of 
patriots  he  gives  us  the  blessings  of  liberty, — that 
is,  by  theii'  sufferings  in  our  defence  we  are  de- 
livered from  the  miseries  of  rapine,  murder,  or 
slavery,  which  might  have  encompassed  our 
dwellings.  The  toil  of  a  father  is  the  price  by 
which  a  son  is  saved  from  ignorance,  depravity,, 
want,  or  death.  The  tears  of  a  mother,  and  her 
long  watchfulness,  save  from  the  perils  of  infancy, 
and  an  early  death.  Friend  aids  friend  by  toil ; 
a  parent  foregoes  rest  for  a  child  ;  and  the  patriot 
pours  out  his  blood  on  the  altars  of  freedom,  that 
othej\s  may  enjoy  the  blessings  of  liberty — that  is. 
that  others  may  not  be  doomed  to  slavery,  want, 
and  death. 

"Yet  still  it  may  be  said,  that  we  have  not  come, 
in  the  analogy,  to  the  precise  point  of  the  atone- 
ment, in  producing  reconciliation  with  God  by 
the  sufferings  of  another.  We  ask  then,  what  is 
the  scripture  account  of  the  effect  of  the  atone- 
ment in  producing  reconciliation  ?  Man  is  justly 
exposed  to  suffering.  He  is  guilty,  and  it  is  the 
righteous  purpose  of  God  that  the  guilty  should 
suffer.  God  is  so  opposed  to  him  that  he  will  inflict 
suffering  on  him,  unless  by  an  atonement  it  is 
prevented.     By  the  intervention  of  an  atoaement*. 


Quotations  from  Mr.  Barnes.  113 

therefore,  the  scriptures  affirm  that  such  sufter- 
inffs  shall  be  averted.     The  man  shall  be  saved 
from  the  impending  calamity.     Sufficient  for  all 
the  purposes  of  justice  and  of  just  government,  has 
fallen  on  the  substitute,  and  the  sinner  may  be 
pardoned  and  reconciled  to  God.  Novr,  we  affirm 
that  in  every  instance  of  the  substituted  suffer- 
ings, or  self-denial  of  the  parent,  the  patriot,  or 
the  benefactor,  there  occurs  a  state  of  things  so 
analogous  to  this,  as  to  show  that  it  is  in  strict  ac- 
cordance with  the  just  government  of  God  ;  and 
to  remove  all  the  objections  to  the  peculiarity  of 
the  atonement.     Over  a  helpless  babe,  ushered 
into  the  world,  naked,  feeble,  speechless,  there 
impends  hunger,  cold,  sickness,  sudden  death — a 
mother's  watchfulness  averts  these  evils.     Over 
a  nation  impend  revolutions,  sword,  famine  and 
the  pestilence.     The  blood  of  the  patriot  averts 
these,  and  the  nation  smiles  in  peace.     Look  at 
a  single  instance :  Xerxes   poured   his   millions 
on  the  shores  of  Greece.     The  vast  host  dark- 
ened all  the  plains,  and  stretched  towards  the 
capitol.     In  the   train  there   followed  weeping, 
blood,    conflagration,   and    the  loss    of   liberty. 
Leonidas,  almost  alone,  stood  in  his  path.     He 
fought.     Who  can  calculate   the  effects  of  the 
valor  and  blood  of  that  single  man  and  his  com- 
patriots in  averting  calamities  from  Greece,  and 
from  other  nations  struggling  in  the  cause  of  free- 


114         Atonement — New  School  Views. 

dom  ?  Who  can  tell  how  much  of  rapine,  of 
cruelty,  and  of  groans  and  tears  it  turned  away 
from  that  nation  ?" 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Barnes  to  state,  that  he  ob- 
serves in  the  words  immediately  following  the  a- 
bove  extract, "  Now  we  by  no  means  affirm  that 
this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  an  atonement,  as 
revealed  by  Christianity."  Yet  in  his  subsequent 
remarks  he  does  not  advance  a  single  idea  which 
gives  a  higher  view  of  that  great  transaction,  than 
is  presented  above  :  and  in  the  passage  we  have 
quoted,  he  affirms  that  the  view  which  he  has  giv- 
en "  vindicates  the  main  principle  of  atonement.'' 
If  his  illustrations  vindicate  the  main  principle  of 
atonement,  they  must  convey  a  correct  idea  of 
what  the  atonement  is.  But  if  the  reader  is  left 
to  obtain  his  knowledge  on  this  subject  from  these 
statements,  he  would  adopt  a  scheme  unworthy 
the  name  of  atonement.  Indeed,  Mr.  Barnes  ad- 
mits, with  reference  to  the  first  part  of  his  state- 
ment, that  it  is  not  an  atonement  ;  though  at  the 
same  time  he  asserts  that  the  "  main  principle  of 
atonement"  is  vindicated  by  the  view  which  he 
had  presented.  But  if  the  "  main  principle^*  of  a- 
tonement  is  exhibited  in  any  part  of  the  above  ex- 
tract, or  in  the  whole  taken  together,  we  can  see 
no  reason  for  the  necessity  of  a  Divine  Mediator ; 
and  should  be  disposed  seriously  to  inquire  wheth- 


Quotations  from  Dr.  Murdoch.  115 

er  Socinianism  is  not  all  the  Christianity  that  we 
need  ?* 

We  shall  give  but  one  more  specimen  of  the 
New  Theology  on  this  subject.  It  will  be  taken 
from  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Murdock,  preached  before 
the  students  at  Andover  in  1823.  He  was  at  that 
time  a  professor  in  the  Andover  Theological  Sem- 
inary. 

"  In  this  text  [Rom.  iii.  25,  26,]  Paul  declares 
explicitly,  what  was  the  immediate  object  of 
Christ's  atoning  sacrifice ;  that  is,  what  effect  it 
had  in  the  economy  of  redemption,  or  how  it  laid 
a  proper  foundation  for  the  pardon  and  the  salva- 


*  The  Christian  Examiner,  a  Unitarian  periodical,  published 
at  Boston,  contains  a  review  of  Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans, in  which  the  writer  observes,  "  On  the  atonement,  our 
author's  views  are  far  in  advance  of  those  of  the  church  to  which 
he  belongs.  Though  he  maintains  that  Christ  was  in  some 
sense  a  substitute  in  the  place  of  sinner?,  he  denies  a  strictly  and 
fully  vicarious  atonement,  and  makes  the  Saviour's  death  im- 
portant chiefly  as  an  illustration  of  the  inherent  and  essential 
connexion  between  sin  and  suffering."  With  regard  to  the 
book,  the  reviewer  says,  "  While,  for  the  most  part,  we  would  ad- 
vise  no  additions,  were  the  work  re-edited  under  Unitarian  su- 
pervision, we  should  note  exceedingly  few  omissions.  Indeed, 
on  many  of  the  standard  and  Trinitarian  proof-texts,  Mr.  Barnes 
has  candidly   indicated   the  inadequacy  of  the  text  to  prove 

the  doctrine." "  Sometimes  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  so  much 

as  suggest  a  Trinitarian  idea  in  commenting  on  texts  which 
have  been  deemed  decidedly  and  irresistibly  Trinitarian  in  their 
bearing." 


116         Atonement — New  School  Views. 

tion  of  sinful  men.  It  was  the  immediate  object 
of  this  sacrifice  to  declare  the  righteousness  of 
God :  in  other  words,  to  display  and  vindicate  the 
perfect  holiness  and  uprightness  of  His  character 
as  a  moral  Governor.  This  display  being  made, 
He  can  with  propriety  forgive  all  that  believe  in 

Christ  Jesus." "To  enable  God  righteously  to 

pardon  the  repenting  sinner,  the  atonement  must 
give  the  same  support  to  law,  or  must  display  as 
impressively  the  perfect  holiness  and  justice  of 
God,  as  the  execution  of  the  law  on  transgressors 
would.  It  must  be  something  different  from  the 
execution  of  the  law  itself ;  because  it  is  to  be  a 
substitute  for  it,  something  which  renders  it  safe 
and  proper  to  suspend  the  regular  course  of  dis- 
tributive justice." "  Now  such  an  expedi- 
ent, the  text  represents  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  to 
be.  It  is  a  declaration  of  the  righteousness  of 
God ;  so  that  He  might  be  just" — might  secure 
the  objects  of  distributive  justice,  as  it  becomes  a 
righteous  moral  governor  to  do — "  and  yet  might 
justify,"  or  acquit  and  exempt  from  punishment  him 
that  believeth  in  Jesus.  It  was  in  the  nature  of 
it,  an  exhibition  or  proof  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  It  did  not  consist  in  the  execution  of  the 
law  on  any  being  whatever ;  for  it  was  a  substi- 
tute for  the  execution  of  it." "  Its  immedi- 
ate influence  was  not  on  the  character  and  rela- 
tions of  man  as  transgressors,  nor  on  the  claims 


Quotations  from  Dr.  Murdoch.  117 

of  the  law  upon  them.  Its  direct  operation  was 
on  the  feelings  and  apprehensions  of  the  beings  at 
large,  who  are  under  the  moral  government  of 
God.  In  two  respects  it  coincided  precisely  with 
a  public  execution  of  the  law  itself:  its  immediate 
influence  was  on  the  same  persons  ;  and  that  in- 
fluence  was   produced   in  the   same   way, — by 

means  of  a  public  exhibition." "  The  only 

difliculty  is  to  understand  how  this  exhibition  was 
a  display  of  the  righteousness  of  God.  To  solve 
it,  some  have  resorted  to  die  supposition  that  the 
Son  of  God  became  our  sjxmsor,  and  satisfied  the 
demands  of  the  law  by  suffering  in  our  stead. 
But  to  this  hypothesis  there  are  strong  objections. 
To  suppose  that  Christ  was  really  and  truly  our 
sponsor,  and  that  he  suffered  in  this  character^ 
would  involve  such  a  transfer  of  legal  obligations 
and  liabilities  and  merits,  as  is  inadmissible  ;  and 
to  suppose  any  thing  short  of  this,  will  not  explain 
the  difliculty.  For  if,  while  we  call  him  a  spon- 
sor, we  deny  that  he  was  legally  holden  or  re- 
sponsible for  us,  and  Hable  in  equity  to  suffer  in 
our  stead,  we  assign  no  intelligible  reason  why 
his  suflferings  should  avail  any  thing  for  our  bene- 
fit, or  display  at  all  the  righteousness  of  God.'' 
"  We  must,  therefore,  resort  to  some  oth- 
er solution.  And  what  is  more  simple,  and  at  the 
same  time  satisfactory,  than  that  which  is  sug- 
gested by  the  text  ?     The  atonement  was  an  er- 


118  Atonement — Old  Theology. 

hihition  or  clisjjkfi/ ;  that  is,  it  was  a  symbolical 
transaction.  It  was  a  transaction  in  which  God 
and  His  Son  were  the  actors  ;  and  they  acted  in 
perfect    harmony,   though    performing   different 

parts  in  the  august  drama." "  The  object 

of  both,  in  this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an 
impression  on  the  minds  of  rational  beings  every 
where  and  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  impres- 
sion to  be  made  was,  that  God  is  a  holy  and  righ- 
teous God  ;  that  while  inclined  to  mercy  he  can- 
not forget  the  demands  of  justice  and  the  danger 
to  his  kingdom  from  the  pardon  of  the  guilty ; 
that  he  must  show  his  feelings  on  this  subject  : 
and  shew  them  so  clearly  and  fully  that  all  his  ra- 
tional creatures  shall  feel  that  He  honors  His  law 
while  suspending  its  operation,  as  much  as  He 
would  by  the  execution  of  it.  But  how,  it  may 
be  asked,  are  these  things  expressed  or  represent- 
ed by  thi^  transaction  ?  The  answer  is — symbol- 
ically. The  Son  of  God  came  down  to  our  world 
to  do  and  to  suffer  what  he  did  ;  not  merely  for 
the  sake  of  doing  those  acts  and  enduring  those 
sorrows,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  impression  to  be 
made  on  the  minds  of  all  beholders,  by  his  labour- 
ing and  suffering  in  this  manner." 

The  principal  difference  between  these  views 
and  those  of  Dr.  Beman  and  others  of  the  same 
school,  is  that  he  has  laid  aside  the  usual  ortho- 
dox terms,  and  expressed  his  sentiments  in  other 


Quotations  from  Dr.  Dana.  119 


language.  Perhaps  this  was  one  reason  why  such 
a  sensation  was  produced  in  the  community  by 
the  appearance  of  the  sermon.  Professor  Stew- 
art published  two  discourses  (if  I  remember  cor- 
rectly) with  a  view  to  counteract  its  influence  ; 
and  Dr.  Dana,  of  Londonderry,  preached  a  ser- 
mon (probably  for  the  same  end)  before  the  Con- 
vention of  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  Min- 
isters of  New-Hampshire  ;  which  was  published  by 
their  request.  From  this  sermon  we  shall  give 
some  extracts,  as  expressive  of  the  Old  Theolo- 
gy on  this  subject.  His  text  is  in  Isa.  liii.  4,  5,  6  ; 
concerning  which,  he  observes : 

"  Jehovah,  the  just,  the  benevolent  Jehovah, 
is  pleased  to  hruise  him  and  to  j^ut  him  to  grief. 
Unparalleled  mystery  !     How  shall  it  be  ex- 
plained ?     One  fact,  and  that  alone  explains  it. 
He  suffered  as  a  substitute.     He  suffered  not  for 
himself,   but  for  those  whom  he  came  to  save. 
This  the  prophet  unequivocally  declares  in  the 
text  ;  and  declares  in  such  variety  and  accumu- 
lation of  language,  as  is  calculated  to  make  the 
very  strongest  impression  on  the  mind."  . ..."  A 
moment's  reflection  may  convince  us  that  if  any 
of  our  sinful  race  are  to  be  pardoned  and  saved, 
an  atonement  is  absolutely  7iec'essary.    God  is  ho- 
ly and  just ;,  infinitely  and  immutably  holy  and 
just.     These  attributes  imply  that  he  has  a  perfect 
and  irreconcilable  aversion  to  all  sin  ;  and  must 


120  Atonement— Old  Theologij, 

manifest  this  aversion  to  his  creatures.  But  how 
can  this  be  done  if  sin  be  pardoned  without  an 
atonement  ?  Would  not  the  great  Jehovah  in  this 
case,  practically  deny  himself?  Would  not  the 
lustre  of  his  glorious  attributes  be  awfully  eclipsed 
and  tarnished  ?  Farther ;  as  the  Sovereign  of  the 
universe,  God  has  given  his  intelligent  creatures  a 
law.  This  law,  while  it  requires  perfect  obedi- 
ence, must  likewise  be  enforced  by  penalties. 
Nor  is  it  enough  that  these  penalties  be  merely 
denounced.  They  must  be  executed  on  those 
who  incur  them  by  transgression  ;  or  on  a  surety. 
Otherwise,  where  is  the  truth  of  the  Lawgiver  ? 
Where  is  the  stability  of  the  law  ?  Where  is  the 
dignity  of  government  ?"...."  Still  further ;  it 
is  easy  to  see  that  satisfaction,  if  made  by  a  surety, 
must  correspond  with  the  debt  due  from  those  in 
whose  behalf  it  is  rendered.  Mankind  universal- 
ly owe  to  their  heavenly  Sovereign,  a  debt  of  per- 
fect, undeviating  obedience."  .  .  .  .  "  We  have 
likewise  contracted  a  debt  of  punishment.  This 
results  from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  and  is 
proportionate  to  the  evil  of  sin.  It  corresponds 
with  the  majesty  and  glory  of  the  Lawgiver,  and 
with  our  own  obligations  to  obedience.  Now  if  a 
surety  undertake  for  us,  he  must  pay  our  debt  in 
both  these  regards."  .  ..."  As  to  his  sufferings, 
we  contend  not  that  the  Redeemer  endured  pre- 
cisely  the   same   misery,  in   kind  or  degree,  to 


Quotations  from  Dr.  Dana.  121 

which  the  sinner  was  exposed,  and  which  he  must 
otherwise  have  endured.  This  was  neither  ne- 
cessary nor  possible.  Infinite  purity  could  not 
know  the  tortures  of  remorse.  Infinite  excellence 
could  not  feel  the  anguish  of  malignant  passions. 
Nor  was  it  needful  that  the  Saviour,  in  making 
atonement  for  human  guilt,  should  sustain  suffer- 
ings without  end  Such,  it  is  admitted,  must  have 
been  the  punishment  of  the  sinner,  had  he  borne 
it  in  his  own  person.  But  this  necessity  results, 
not  directly  from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law, 
but. from  the  impossibility  that  a  finite  transgressor 
should,  within  any  limited  period,  render  satisfac- 
tion for  his  sins.  But  the  infinite  dignity  of  the 
Saviour  imparted  an  infinite  value  and  efficacy  to 
his  temporary  sufferings.  Indeed  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  he  endured  as  much  of  that  same 
misery  to  which  the  sinner  stands  exposed,  as 
consisted  with  the  perfect  innocence,  dignity  and 
glory  of  his  character.  He  suffered  not  only  the 
united  assaults  of  human  cruelty  and  infernal  rage, 
but  the  far  more  torturing  pains  of  Divine  derelic- 
tion. And  inasmuch  as  the  scripture  expressly 
declares  that  in  redeeming  us  from  the  law  he  was 
made  a  curse  for  us,  we  are  constrained  to  con- 
clude that  his  sufferings  were  a  substantial  execu- 
tion of  the  threatening  of  the  law  ;  a  real  endur- 
ance of  its  penalty,  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  admitted  or  required." 

L 


122  Atonement — Old  Theology. 

With  reference  to  Dr.  Murdock's*  views,  Dr. 
Dana  observes  :  "  In  the  first  place,  it  tends  ap- 
parently, at  least  to  subvert  the  law^.  It  declares 
that  "  the  atonement  is  something  different  from 
the  execution  of  the  law,  and  a  substitute  iov  it ;" 
that  "  it  did  not  fulfil  the  law,  or  satisfy  its  de- 
mands on  transgressors."  In  accordance  with 
these  views,  it  declares  that  "  the  justification  of 
believers  is  not  founded  on  the  principles  of  law 
and  distributive  justice  ;"  and  further,  that  it  is  a 
real  departure  from  the  regular  course  of  justice  ; 
and  such  a  departure  from  it,  as  leaves  the  claims 
of  the  law  on  the  persons  justified  forever  unsatis- 
fied. Without  commenting  at  large  on  these  sug- 
gestions so  peculiar,  and  so  grating  (as  I  appre- 
hend) to  the  ears  and  hearts  of  most  christians,  I 
will  simply  set  before  you  the  Saviour's  own  in- 
tentions, in  his  advent  and  mediation  ;  and  these 
as  declared  in  his  own  words :  "  Think  not  (says 
he)  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the 
prophets.  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil. 
For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven  and  earth 
pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled."  Surely  then  his 
atonement  was  not  "  a  substitute  for  the  execution 
of  the  law."  On  the  contrary,  his  obedience  and 
sufferings  were  a  substantial  fulfilment  of  its  pre- 

*  Dr.  M.  is  not  mentioned  by  name. 


Quotations  fro?)i  Dr.  Dana.  123 

cept  and  its  penalty  ;  and  were  designed  to  pro- 
cure the  justification  and  salvation  of  men,  not 
through  a  "  departure  from  the  regular  course  of 
justice  ;"  nOt  by  "  leaving  the  claims  of  the  law 
forever  unsatisfied  ;"  but  in  perfect  accordance 
with  the  immutable  and  everlasting  principles 
both  of  law  and  justice."  .... 

2.  "This  scheme  gives  us  such  views  of  the  divine 
character,  as  are  equally  inexplicable  and  distress- 
ing." .  ..."  A  Being  of  spotless  innocence,  and  Di- 
vine dignity  ;  a  Being  adored  by  angels  and  dear  to 
God ;  a  Being,  in  short,  the  most  lovely  and  glorious 
that  the  intelligent  creation  ever  saw,  is  subjected  to 
sufferings  more  complicated  and  severe  than  were 
ever  before  endured  in  our  w^orld ;  and  all  this 
uot  by  way  of  substitution  ;  not  by  way  of  satis- 
faction for  the  sins  of  others ;  but  of  exhibition  or 

display  /".... 

3.  "  It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the  theory 
in  view  does  not  comprise  a  virtual  denial  of  the 
atonement  itself.  It  leaves  us  the  name  ;  but  what 
does  it  leave  of  the  I'eality  ?  An  exhibition  is  not 
an  atonement.  A  display  is  not  an  atonement.  A 
mere  symbolical  transaction  is  not  an  atonement.". . 

"Where,  then,  let  it  be  asked  in  the  fourth  place, 
is  the  foundation  of  the  believer's  hope?  It  is  a 
notorious  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  christians  in 
every  age  have  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  vi- 
carious sufferings  and  obedience  of  their  Saviour. 


124  Atonement — Old  Theology. 

Pressed  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  they  have  taken  ref- 
uge in  his  atoning  blood.  Conscious"  of  the  im- 
perfection of  their  best  obedience,  they  have  trust- 
ed in  his  righteousness  alone.  United  to  their 
Redeemer  by  living  faith,  they  have  assured 
themselves  of  a  personal  interest  in  his  atonement 
and  righteousness.  And  they  have  exulted  in  the 
thought  that  this  method  of  salvation  met  all  the 
demands,  and  secured  all  the  honors,  of  the  divine 
law  and  justice.  Shall  christians  now^  be  told 
that  this  is  mere  dream  and  delusion  ;  that  no 
proper  satisfaction  for  their  sins  has  ever  been 
made  ;  that  their  justification  is  nothing  but  an  ah- 
solute  pardon ;  and  that  even  this  is  a  "  depart- 
ure from  the  regular  course  of  justice  ?"  Doc- 
trine like  this  is  calculated  to  appal  the  believer's 
heart,  and  plant  thorns  in  his  dying  pillow.  It  is 
even  calculated  to  send  a  pang  to  the  bosoms  of 
the  blest ;  to  silence  those  anthems  of  praise 
which  the  redeemed  on  high  are  offering  '  to  Him 
that  loved  them  and  washed  them  from  their  sins 
in  his  own  blood.'  " 

There  was  the  same  necessity  for  Christ's  suf- 
fering the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  for  his  suffering 
at  all.  "The  penalty  of  a  holy,  violated  law. 
was  the  only  thing  which  stood  in  the  way. 
Mere  sufferings  of  any  one  are  of  no  value,  ex- 
cept in  relation  to  some  end.  The  sufferings  of 
Christ  could  no  otherwise  open  a  way  of  pardort 


Remarks  of  Dr,  Alexander.  125 

but  by  removing  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  but 
they  could  have  no  tendency  to  remove  the  pen- 
alty but  by  his  enduring  it.  Sufferings  not  requir- 
ed by  law  and  justice  must  have  been  unjust  suf- 
ferings, and  never  could  effect  aijy  good,  Such 
exhibition  could  not  have  the  effect  of  demonstra- 
ting God's  hatred  of  sin,  for  it  was  not  the  pun- 
ishment of  sin  ;  nor  could  it  make  the  impression 
on  the  world,  that  the  Ruler  of  the  Universe 
would  hereafter  punish  sin  ;  for,  according  to  this 
theory,  sin  goes  unpunished,  and  dreadful  suffer- 
ings are  inflicted  on  the  innocent  to  whom  no  sin 
is  imputed.  This  scheme  as  really  subverts  the 
true  doctrine  of  atonement,  as  that  of  Socinus ; 
and  no  reason  appears  why  it  was  necessary  that 
the  person  making  this  exhibition  should  be  a  Di- 
vine person."     Dr.  Alexander. 

The  v/hole  controversy  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  atonement,  may  be  resolved  into  two  ques- 
tions :  1.  Is  God  bound  to  punish  sin  ?  and  2. 
Does  this  necessity  arise  from  the  nature  of  God, 
or  from  circumstances  which  lie  without  him? 
In  other  words,  do  his  holiness  and  justice  require 
him  to  manifest  his  abhorence  to  sin  by  inflicting 
upon  it  deserved  punishment  ?  or  does  the  neces- 
sity for  manifesting  this  abhorence  lie  only  in 
"  reasons  of  state,"  as  civilians  say — i.  e.  in  the 
necessity  of  making  a  salutary  impression  upon 
his  moral  government  ? 

L* 


126  Atonement — Old  Theology. 

That  the  veracity  of  God  requires  him  to  exe- 
cute the  threatenings  of  his  law,  we  have  already 
shown.  But  why  do  we  find  such  a  law  in  ex- 
istence ?— a  Jaw^  binding  him  to  punish  sin  ?  "  The 
opposition  of  God's  law  to  sin,  is  just  the  opposi- 
tion of  his  nature  to  sin  ;  his  nature,  not  his  will, 
is  the  ultimate  standard  of  morality.  His  de- 
termination to  punish  sin  is  not  voluntary^  but  ne- 
cessary. He  does  not  annex  a  punishment  to  sin 
because  he  wills  to  do  so,  but  because  his  nature 
requires  it.  If  the  whole  of  such  procedure 
could  be  resolved  into  mere  volition,  then  it  is 
not  only  supposable  that  God  might  not  have  de- 
termined to  punish  sin,  but,  which  is  blasphemous, 
that  he  might  have  determined  to  reward  it. 
This  is  not  more  clearly  deducible  from  the  na- 
ture of  a  being  of  perfect  moral  excellence,  than 
plainly  taught  in' scripture.  "  He  will  by  no  means 
clear  the  guilty.  The  Lord  is  a  jealous  God,  he 
will  not  forgive  your  transgressions  nor  your  sins. 
Thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath  jileasure  in  wicked- 
ness, neither  shall  evil  dwell  with  thee.  God  is 
angry  with  the  wicked  eveiy  day.  The  Lord  will 
take  vengeance  on  his  adversaries,  and  he  reserv- 
eth  wrath  for  his  enemies.  Who  can  stand  before 
his  indignation  ?  B.nd  who  can  abide  in  the  fierce- 
ness of  his  anger  ?  Is  God  unrighteous  who  tak- 
eth  vengeance  ?  Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire.^^ 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  7;  Josh.  xxiv.  19;  Psl.  v.  4;  vi. 


Remarks  of  Symington,  127 

11  ;  Neh.  i.  2,  6 ;  Rom.  iii.  5;  Heb.  xii.  29.)  We 
may  confidently  appeal  to  every  unprejudiced 
mind  whether  such  descriptions  as  these  do  not 
fully  bear  us  out  in  the  view  we  have  taken  of 
God's  retributive  justice.  And  if  this  view  is 
correct,  sin  cannot  go  unpunished  ;  it  cannot  be 
pardoned  without  a  satisfaction ;  God  cannot  but 
take  vengeance  on  iniquity;  to  do  otherwise 
would  be  to  violate  the  perfection  of  his  nature. 
Just  he  is,  and  just  he  ever  must  be  ;  and  there 
is  only  one  way,  that  of  an  atoning  sacrifice, 
by  w4iich  he  can  be  at  once  "  a  just  God  and  a 
Saviour."     Symington  on  the  Atonement. 

If  the  only  reason  why  God  is  bound  to  punish 
sin  arises  from  the  eflfect  to  be  produced  upon  the 
universe,  then  if  he  had  created  no  other  intelli- 
gent beings  except  man,  no  atonement  would 
have  been  necessary — because  no  moral  beings 
would  exist  upon  whom  to  make  this  impression 
— and  of  course  he  might  have  forgiven  us  irre- 
spective of  an  atonement,  without  doing  any  in- 
jury to  his  government.  But  if  the  necessity  of 
punishing  sin  lies  primarily  in  his  nature,  an 
atonement  would  be  as  necessary  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  a  single  sinner,  if  he  had  been  the  only 
being  in  the  universe,  as  it  was  under  the  circum- 
stances in  which  this  scheme  of  mercy  was  de- 
vised. And  this  we  believe  to  be  the  fact.  Oth- 
erwise God  does  not  possess  essentially,  that  holi- 


128  Atonement— Old  Theoh 


SU' 


ness,  which  the  scriptures  represent  as  constitu- 
ting the  glory  of  his  character. 

If  then  the  question  be  asked,  why  is  God 
bound  to  punish  sin  ?  the  first  answer  is,  because 
it  is  right — sin  being  opposite  to  hisnature — and 
his  nature  therefore  requires  him  to  manifest  to- 
wards it  his  abhorrence.  Is  the  question  repeat- 
ed ?  We  reply,  it  is  required  from  a  regard  to 
his  law  and  government.  Though  the  former  is 
the  primary  reason,  the  latter  is  of  great  impor- 
tance, and  must  never  be  forgotten.  Taken  to- 
gether, they  shew  not  only  the  necessity  of  an 
atonement  in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  but  that 
the  atonement  must  consist  in  a  substantial  endur- 
ance of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  On  any  other 
principle,  sin  goes  unpunished  ;  and  we  are  driv- 
en to  the  conclusion  before  adverted  to,  that  God 
is  not  "glorious  in  holiness^' — ^^3i  just  God,"  who 
"  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty." 

The  following  extract  from  Dr.  Bellamy  will 
shew  how  nearly  the  above  views  correspond 
with  the  sentiments  prevalent  in  New  England 
a  hundred  years  ago  :  "  It  was  fit,  if  any  intelh- 
gent  creature  should  at  any  time  swerve  at  all 
from  the  perfect  will  of  God,  that  he  should  for- 
ever lose  bis  favor  and  fall  under  his  everlasting 
displeasure,  for  a  thing  so  infinitely  wrong :  And 
in  such  a  case  it  w^as  fit  the  Governor  of  the 
world  should  be  infinitely  displeased  and  publicly 


Views  of  Dr  Bdlaimj.  129 

testify  his  infinite  displeasure  by  a  punishment 
adequate  thereto,  inflicted  on  the  sinning  crea- 
ture. This  would  satisfy  justice  ;  for  justice  is 
satisfied  when  the  thing  which  is  wrong  is  pun- 
ished according  to  its  desert.  Hence,  it  was  fit, 
when  by  a  constitution,  holy,  just  and  good,  Adam 
w^as  made  a  public  head,  to  represent  his  race, 
and  act  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  all  his  pos- 
terity ;  it  was  fit,  I  say,  that  he  and  all  his  race, 
for  his  first  transgression,  should  lose  the  favor, 
and  fall  under  the  everlasting  displeasure  of  the 
Almighty.  It  was  fit  that  God  should  be  infinite- 
ly displeased  at  so  abominable  a  thing — and  that 
as  Governor  of  the  world,  he  should  publicly 
bear  testimony  against  it,  as  an  infinite  evil,  by  in- 
flicting the  infinite  punishment  the  law  threaten- 
ed ;  i.  e.  by  damning  the  whole  world.  This 
would  have  satisfied  justice  :  for  justice  is  satisfied 
when  justice  takes  place — when  the  guilty  are 
treated  with  that  severity  they  ought  to  be — when 
sin  is  punished  as  being  what  it  is.  Now  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  has,  by  his  Father's  ap- 
pointment and  approbation,  assumed  our  nature — 
taken  the  place  of  a  guilty  world — and  had  not  only 
Adam's  first  transgression,  but  the  iniquities  of 
us  all  laid  upon  him,  and  in  our  room  and  stead, 
hath  suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  the  curse  of  the 
law,  offering  up  himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  the 
sins  of  men :  and  hereby  the  infinite  evil  of  sin 


130  Atonement — Old  Theology, 

and  the  righteousness  of  the  law  are  publicly 
owned  and  acknowledged,  and  the  deserved  pun- 
ishment voluntarily  submitted  unto  by  man,  i.  e. 
by  his  representative :  and  thus  justice  is  satis- 
fied ;  for  justice  is  satisfied  w  hen  justice  takes 
place  ;  and  sin  is  now  treated  as  being  what  it  is, 
as  much  as  if  God  had  damned  the  whole  world  ; 
and  God,  as  Governor,  appears  as  severe  against 
it.  And  thus  the  righteousness  of  God  is  declar- 
ed and  manifested,  by  Christ's  being  set  forth  to 
be  a  propitiation  for  sin ;  and  he  may  nov\^  be 
just  and  yet  justify  him  that  believes  in  Jesus." 
True  Religion  Delineated,  pp.  332,  333. 

Similar  to  the  views  here  expressed,  were  those 
of  the  early  European  divines.  "There  was  no 
defect  in  the  payment  he  made.  We  owed  a 
debt  of  blood  to  the  law,  and  his  life  was  offered 
up  as  a  sacrifice  ;  otherwise  the  law  had  remain- 
ed in  its  full  vigor  and  justice  had  been  unsatis- 
fied. That  a  Divine  person  hath  suflfered  our 
punishment,  is  properly  the  reason  of  our  redemp- 
tion."   "  Tlte  blood  of  Christ  shed,  (Mat.  xxvi. 

28,)  poured  forth  from  his  veins  and  offered  up  to 
God,  in  that  precise  consideration,  ratifies  the  New 
Testament.  The  sum  is,  our  Saviour  by  his  death 
suffered  the  malediction  of  the  law,  and  his  Divine 

nature  gave  a  full  value  to  his  sufferings." 

"And  God,  who  was  infinitely  provoked,  is  infi* 
nitely  pleased."     Bates. 


Rc?}iarks  of  Bates,  Owen,  (^-c.  131 

"  A  surety,  sponsor,  for  us,  the  Lord  Christ 
was,  by  his  voluntary  undertaking  out  of  his  rich 
grace  and  love,  to  do,  answer, "  and  perform  all 
that  is  required  on  our  parts,  that  we  may  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  the  covenant,  the  grace  and  glory 
prepared,  proposed  and  promised  in  it,  in  the  way 
and  manner  determined  on  by  Divine  wisdom. 
And  this  may  be  reduced  unto  two  heads: 
1.  His  answering  for  our  transgressions  against 
the  first  covenant.  2.  His  purchase  and  procure- 
ment of  the  grace  of  the  new.  "  He  was  made  a 
curse  for  us  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might 

come  upon  us."     Gal.  iii.  13 — 15 "  That  is, 

he  underwent  the  punishment  due  unto  our  sins, 
to  make  atonement  for  us,  by  offering  himself  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  expiation  of  our  sins^ 
Owen. 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  who  believe  in  his 
name  from  the  terrible  curse  of  the  law,  and 
bought  us  oflf  from  that  servitude  and  misery  to 
which  it  inexorably  doomed  us,  by  being  himself 
made  a  curse  for  us,  and  enduring  the  penalty 
which  our  sms  had  deserved."     Dodridge. 

"I  wonder  that  Jerome  and  Erasmus  should  labor 
and  seek  for  I  know  not  what  figure  of  speech,  to 
show  that  Christ  was  not  called  accursed.  Truly 
in  this  is  placed  all  our  hope  :  in  this  the  infinite 
love  of  God  is  manifested :  in  this  is  placed  our 
salvation,  that  God  properly  and  without  any  fig- 


132  Atoneme7it — Old  Theology. 

ure,  poured  out  all  His  wrath  on  His  own  Son ; 
caused  him  to  be  accursed,  that  He  might  receive 
us  into  His  favor.  Finally,  without  any  figure, 
Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  imless  he  had  been  truly  God,  he  must 
have  remained  under  the  curse  forever,  from 
which,  for  our  sakes,  he  emerged.  For  indeed,  if 
the  obedience  be  figurative  and  imaginary,  so 
must  our  hope  of  glory  be."  Beza,  as  quoted  by 
Scott. 

These  several  quotations  all  proceed  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  necessity  of  the  atonement  lay  pri- 
marily in  the  nature  of  God  :  that  \\\s  justice  must 
be  appeased  by  a  true  and  proper  satisfaction, 
before  it  was  possible  for  Him  to  regard  sinners 
with  favor ;  and  that  this  satisfaction  having  been 
made  by  the  vicarious  and  expiatory  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  "  hath  given  himself  for  us  an 
offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet  smell- 
ing savor,"  pardon  and  salvation  are  freely  be- 
stowed upon  believing  sinners,  in  perfect  harmo- 
ny with  all  the  Divine  attributes.  With  the  work 
which  Christ  performed,  God  the  Father  was  in- 
finitely well  pleased  ;  and  through  him  He  looks 
with  complacency  upon  all  who  are  united  to  him 
by  faith.  He  was  well  pleased,  because  Christ 
performed  all  that  law  and  justice  required — for, 
as  Bellamy  observes,  "  justice   is  satisfied   when 


Scripture  Proofs.  135 

justice  takes  place."  "  I  have  finished  the  work," 
said  Christ,  "  which  thou  gavest  me  to  do."  And 
again,  just  before  he  expired  he  said,  "  It  is  finish- 
ed." His  work  of  active  obedience  was  finished 
when  he  uttered  the  first ;  and  when  he  spake  the 
last,  his  work  of  suffering  was  also  completed. 
We  behold  him  now  as  "  the  Lamh  of  God,"  sac- 
rificed to  propitiate  the  Divine  favor  ;  John  i.  29 : 
as  "  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  ;"  1  John,  ii.  2  : 
as  a  "  sin-offering'^  presented  to  God  for  a  sacri- 
fice of  expiation;  2  Cor.  v.  21,  Gr. :  as  "a 
ransom,"  or  redemption-price,  to  "  redeem  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law  ;"  Mat.  xx.  28  ;  Gal.  iii. 
13  :  as  "the  man,  God's  fellow;"  "on  whom 
was  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all ;"  w^ho  "  bare  our 
sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree  ;"  Zech.  xiii.  7 ; 
Isa.  liii.  6  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  24  :  as,  in  fine,  both  the 
offering  and  the  priest,  who  having  "  appeared  to 
put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,"  "oflfered 
himself  without  spot  to  God,"  and  "  by  his  own 
blood,  entered  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtain- 
ed eternal  redemption  for  us  ;"  Heb.  ix.  12,  14, 
26.  How  explicit  are  these  passages  with  re- 
gard to  the  nature  of  Christ's  sufferings.  In  view 
of  them  I  am  disposed  almost  involuntary  to  ex- 
claim, "  O  Lord  I  will  praise  Thee  :  though  Thou 
wast  angry  with  me,  Thine  anger  is  turned  away, 
and  Thou   comfortest   me."     "  God  is  in  Christ 


134  Scripture  Proofs. 

reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them."  "  Whosoever  believ- 
eth  on  Him  shall  not  be  confounded." 

"  With  joy,  with  grief,  that  healing  hand  I  see  ; 
"  Alas  !  how  low  !  how  far  beneath  the  skies  ! 
"  The  skies  it  formed,  and  now  it  bleeds  for  me — 
"  But  bleeds  the  balm  I  want — 
"  There  hangs  all  human  hope  ;  that  nail  supports 
"  The  faUing  universe  :  that  gone,  we  drop  j 
"  Horror  receives  us,  and  the  dismal  wish 
"  Creation  had  been  smothered  in  her  birth." 


CHAP,   VI. 

Justification — a  continuation  of  the  preceding  chapter. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  is  that  of  justification.  The  different 
views,  therefore,  with  regard  to  the  former,  which 
have  been  exhibited  in  the  last  chapter,  will  give 
a  corresponding  complexion  to  our  sentiments 
concerning  the  latter.  Those  who  maintain  that 
Christ  obeyed  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty  in 
our  stead,  and  thereby  made  a  true  and  proper 
satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  believe  that  his  obe- 
dience and  sufferings,  constituting  what  is  usually 
styled  his  righteousness,  are  imputed  to  the  be- 
liever for  his  justification  ;  Christ's  righteousness 
being  received  by  faith  as  the  instrument.  Ac- 
cordingly justification  consists  not  only  in  the  par- 
don of  sin,  or  in  other  words,  in  the  release  of  the 
believing  sinner  from  punishment ;  but  also  in  the 
acceptance  of  his  person  as  righteous  in  the  eye 
of  the  law,  through  the  obedience  of  Christ  reck- 
oned or  imputed  to  him  ;  by  which  he  has  a  title 
to  eternal  life. 

On  the  contrary,  those  who  deny  that  Christ 
obeyed  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty  as  our 
substitute,  deny  also  the  imputation  of  his  right- 
eousness for  our  justification ;  and  though  they 


136  Justification  hy  FaitJi. 

retain  the  word,  justification,  they  make  it  consist 
in  mere  pardon.*  In  the  eye  of  the  law,  the  be- 
liever, according  to  their  views,  is  not  justified  at 
all,  and  never  will  be  through  eternity.  Tiiough 
on  the  ground  of  what  Christ  has  done,  God  is 
pleased  io  forgive  the  sinner  upon  his  believing  j 
Christ's  righteousness  is  not  reckoned  in  any  sense 
as  his,  or  set  down  to  his  account.  He  believes, 
and  his  faith,  or  act  of  believing  is  accounted  to 
him  for  righteousness  ;  that  is,  faith  is  so  reckon- 
ed to  his  account,  that  God  treats  him  as  if  he 
were  righteous. 

That  the  views  first  given  accord  with  the  gen» 
era]  sentiments  of  the  church  since  the  Reforma- 
tion is  capable  of  abundant  proof.  Though  in 
the  time  of  the  reformers  the  opponents  of  the 
true  doctrine  did  not  take  the  same  ground,  in  ev- 
ery respect,  which  has  been  taken  since,  and  which 
is  described  in  the  statement  just  made  concern- 


*  "The  pardon  of  sin  alone  can  with  no  propriety  be  denom- 
inated justification.  Pardon  and  justification  are  not  only  dis- 
tinct, but,  in  common  cases,  utterly  incompatible.  A  culprit  tried 
and  condemned  may  among  men  be  pardoned,  but  it  would  be 
a  solecism  to  say,  that  such  a  man  was  justified.". . .  .*'  But  by 
the  plan  of  salvation  through  Christ  there  is  not  only  a  ground 
for  pardon,  but  there  is  rendered  to  the  law  a  righteousness, 
which  lays  the  foundation  for  an  act  of  justification.  By  par^ 
doi»  the  sinner  is  freed  from  condemnation,  by  justification  he  ii^. 
entitled  to  the  heavenly  inheritance."    Dr.  Alexanders 


Views  of  Luther.  137 


ing  the  views  entertained  by  the  advocates  of  the 
New  Theology;  in  one  particular  they  are  all 
agreed,  viz.  in  rejecting  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness ;  the  adoption  or  denial  of  which  is 
the  basis  of  all  the  other  differences  that  exist  on 
this  subject.     To  this  doctrine,  therefore,  the  re- 
formers clung,  as  the  sheet-anchor  of  the  christian 
faith.     Justification  by  faith,  through  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ ;  this  w^as  their  doctrine. 
And  so  important  did  they  regard  it,  that  Luther 
was  accustomed   to   denominate  it,  (as  is  well 
known,)  articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesice ; 
the  very  pillar  on  w  hich  the  church  rests ;  a  de- 
nial of  whicli  must  result  in  her  ruin.     The  man- 
ner in  which  his  mind  was  brought  to  entertain 
clear  views  on  this  subject  is  highly  interesting. 
"  Three  days  and  three  nights  together  he  lay 
upon  his  bed   w^ithout  meat,  drink,  or  any  sleep, 
like  a  dead  man,  (as  some  do  write  of  him,)  labor- 
ing in  soul  and  spirit  upon  a  certain  place  of  St. 
Paul  in  the  3d  chapter  to  the  Romans, "  to  declare 
his  righteousness,"  [or  justice,]  thinking  Christ  to 
be  sent  for  no  other  end  but  to  show  forth  God's 
justice,  as  an  executor  of  his  law ;  till  at  length 
being  assured  and  satisfied  by  the  Lord,  touching 
the  right  meaning  of  these  words,  signifying  the 
justice  of  God  to  be  executed  upon  his  Son  to 
save  us  from  the  stroke  thereof,  he  immediately 
upon  the  same,  started  up  from  his  bed,  so  con- 


138  Justification  hy  Faith. 

firmed  in  faith,  as  nothing  afterwards  could  appa! 
him."  Life  of  Luther,  prefixed  to  his  Commen- 
tary on  the  Galatians. 

The  following  extracts  from  Owen  on  Justifi- 
cation will  show  the  nature  of  the  controversy 
soon  after  the  Reformation.  "  There  are  two 
grand  parties  by  whom  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
is  opposed,  namely,  the  Papists  and  the  Socinians. 
But  they  proceed  on  different  principles,  and  unto 
different  ends.  The  design  of  the  one  is  to  exalt 
their  own  merits,  of  the  other,  to  destroy  the  merit 
of  Christ."  .  .  .  .  "  Those  of  the  Roman  church 
plainly  say,  that  upon  the  infusion  of  a  habit  of 
grace,  with  the  expulsion  of  sin  and  the  renovation 
of  our  natures  thereby,  which  they  call  the  first 
justification,  we  are  actually  justified  before  God, 
by  our  own  works  of  righteousness."  ....  They 
say  "  that  this  righteousness  of  works  is  not  abso- 
lutely perfect,  nor  in  itself  able  to  justify  us  in  the 
sight  of  God,  but  owes  all  its  worth  and  dignity 
unto  this  purpose  unto  the  merit  of  Christ."  .... 
But  "  Christ  hath  only  merited  the  first  grace  for 
us,  that  we  therewith,  and  thereby,  may  merit  life 
eternal."  ....  Hence  "  those  other  inofredients  of 
confession,  absolution,  penances  or  commutations^ 
aids  from  saints  and  angels,  especially  the  blessed 
Virgin,  all  warmed  by  the  fire  of  purgatory,  and 
confidently  administered  unto  persons  sick  of  ig- 


Extracts  from  Owen.  139 

norance,  darkness  and  sin."  .  .  .  .  "  The  Socinians, 
who  expressly  oppose  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  plead  for  a  participation  of  its 
effects  or  benefits  only."  .  ..."  He  [Socinus]  sup- 
poseth,  that  if  all  he  did  in  a  way  of  obedience, 
was  due  from  himself  on  his  own  account,  and  was 
only  the  duty  which  he  owed  unto  God  for  him- 
self in  his  station  and  circumstances,  as  a  man  iu 
this  world,  it  cannot  be  meritorious  for  us,  nor  any 
way  imputed  unto  us.  And  in  like  manner  to 
weaken  the  doctrine  of  his  satisfaction,  and  the 
imputation  thereof  unto  us,  he  contends  that 
Christ  offered  as  a  priest  for  himself,  in  that  kind 

of  offering  which  he  made  on  the  cross." 

"  Hereby  he  excludes  the  church  from  any  benefit 
by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  but  only  what  consists 
in  his  doctrine,  example,  and  the  exercise  of  his 
power  in  heaven  for  our  good." 

"  We  grant  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all  that 
do  believe."  ...."'  For  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in 
all  goodness  and  righteousnes  and  truth.'  Eph.  v.  9. 
*  Being  made  free  from  sin,  w^e  become  the  ser- 
vants of  righteousness,'  Rom.  vi.  18.  And  our 
duty  it  is  to  '  follow  after  righteousness,  godliness, 
faith,  love,  meekness.'  1  Tim.  ii,  22."  .  ..."  But 
although  this  righteousness  of  believers  be  on 
other  accounts  like  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  that  glads 
the  hesirt  of  God  and  man,  yet  as  unto  our  justifi- 
cation before  God,  it  is  like  the  wood  of  the  vine — 


140  Righteousness  of  Christ, 

a  pin  is  not  to  be  taken  from  it  to  hang  any  weight 
of  this  cause  upon."  .  .  .  .  "  That  righteousness 
which  neither  answereth  the  law  of  God,  nor  the 
end  of  God  in  our  justification  by  the  gospel,  is  not 
that  whereon  we  are  justified.  But  such  is  this 
inherent  righteousness  of  behevers,  even  of  the 
best  of  them."  .  ..."  It  is  imperfect  with  respect 
unto  every  act  and  duty  of  it,  w  hether  internal  or 
external.  There  is  iniquity  cleaving  unto  our 
holy  thing;,  and  all  our  *  righteousnesses  are  as 
filthy  rags.'     Isa.  Ixiv.  6." 

"  That  which  is  imputed  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  ;  and  briefly  I  understand  hereby,  his 
whole  obedience  unto  God  in  all  that  he  did  and 
suffered  for  the  church.  This  I  say  is  imputed 
unto  believers,  so  as  to  become  their  only  right- 
eousness before  God  unto  the  justification  of  fife." 
.  .  .  .  "  The  judgment  of  the  reformed  churches 
herein  is  known  unto  all."  .  .  .  .  "  Especially  the 
church  of  England  is  in  her  doctrine  express  as 
unto  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
both  active  and  passive,  as  it  is  usually  distin- 
guished. This  hath  been  of  late  so  fully  mani- 
fested out  of  her  authentic  writings,  that  is,  the  ar- 
ticles of  religion,  and  books  of  homilies,  and  other 
writings  publicly  authorized,  that  it  is  altogether 
needless  to  give  any  farther  demonstration  of  it." 
.  .  .  .  "  The  law  hath  two  parts  or  powders  ;  1.  Its 
preceptive  part 2.  The  sanction  on  suppo- 


Extracts  from  Owen.  141 

sition  of  disobedience,  binding  the  sinner  unto 
punishment."  .  .  .  .  "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ful- 
filled the  whole  law  for  us  ;  he  did  not  only  un- 
dergo the  penalty  of  it  due  unto  our  sins,  but  also 
yielded  that  perfect  obedience  wliich  it  did  re- 
quire." .  .  .  .  "  Christ's  fulfilling  the  law  in  obedi- 
ence unto  its  commands,  is  no  less  imputed  unto 
us  for  our  justification,  than  his  undergoing  the 
penalty  of  it  is."  .  .  .  .  "  For  why  was  it  necessary, 
or  w^hy  would  God  have  it  so,  that  the  Lord  Christ, 
as  the  surety  of  the  covenant,  should  undergo  the 
curse  and  penalty  of  the  law,  which  we  had  incur- 
red the  guilt  of,  by  sin,  that  we  may  be  justified 
in  his  sight  ?  Was  it  not  that  the  glory  and  honor 
of  his  righteousness,  as  the  author  of  the  law,  and 
the  Supreme  Governor  of  all  mankind  thereby, 
might  not  be  violated  in  the  absolute  impunity  of 
the  infringers  of  it  ?  And  if  it  were  requisite  unto 
the  glory  of  God,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law 
should  be  undergone  for  us,  or  suffered  by  our 
surety  in  our  stead,  because  we  had  sinned ; 
wherefore  is  it  not  as  requisite  unto  the  glory  of 
God,  that  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law  be  com- 
plied withal  for  us,  inasmuch  as  obedience  there- 
unto is  required  of  us  ?  And  as  we  are  no  more 
able  of  ourselves  to  fulfil  the  law,  in  a  way  of 
obedience,  than  to  undergo  the  penalty  of  it,  so  as 
that  we  may  be  justified  thereby  ;  so  no  reason 
can  be  given,  why  God  is  not  as  much  concerned 


142  Righteousness  of  Christ. 

in  honor  and  glory,  that  the  preceptive  power 
and  part  of  the  law  be  complied  withal  by  per- 
fect obedience,  as  that  the  sanction  of  it  be  estab- 
lished by  undergoing  its  penalty."  . .  . .  "  The  con- 
science of  a  convinced  sinner,  who  presents  him- 
self in  the  presence  of  God,  finds  all  practically 
reduced  unto  this  one  point,  viz.  whether  he  will 
trust  unto  his  own  personal  inherent  righteous- 
ness, or  in  a  full  renunciation  of  it,  betake  himself 
unto  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  alone."  .  .  .  .  "  The  latter  is  the  true  and 
only  relief  of  distressed  consciences,  of  sinners 

who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden that  which 

alone  they  may  oppose  unto  the  sentence  of  the 
law,  and  interpose  between  God^s  justice  and  their 
souls,  wherein  they  may  take  shelter  from  the 
storms  of  that  wrath  which  abideth  on  them  that 
believe  not." 

These  views  of  Owen  accord  with  the  doctrine 
of  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  with  the  senti- 
ments of  other  standard  writers.  The  language 
of  our  Confession  is  as  follows :  "  Those  whom 
God  effectually  calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth ; 
not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by 
pardoning  their  sins,  and  by  accounting  and  ac- 
cepting their  persons  as  righteous,  not  for  any 
thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  for 
Christ's  sake  alone  :  not  by  imputing  faith  itself, 
the  act  of  believing,  or  any  other  evangelical  obe«. 


Vieios  of  Calvin.  143 


diencc  to  them,  as  their  righteousness  ;  but  by  im- 
puting the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ 
unto  them,  they  receiving  and  resting  on  him  and 
his  righteousness  by  faith."  Says  Calvin,  "  He  is 
said  to  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  in  the 
Divine  judgment  is  reputed  righteous,  and  accept- 
ed on  account  of  his  righteousness."  .  .  .  .  "  He 
must  be  said,  therefore,  to  be  justified  hy  works^ 
whose  hfe  discovers  such  purity  and  hohness  as 
to  deserve  the  character  of  righteousness  before 
the  throne  of  God ;  or  who,  by  the  integrity  of  his 
works,  can  answer  and  satisfy  the  Divine  judg- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  he  will  be  justified  hy 
faiths  who  being  excluded  from  the  righteousness 
of  works,  apprehends  by  faith  t!ie  righteousness 
of  Christ,  invested  in  which  he  appears  in  the  sight 
of  God,  not  as  a  sinner,  but  as  a  righteous  man. 
Thus  we  simply  explain  justification  to  be  an  ac- 
ceptance by  which  God  receives  into  his  favor 
and  esteems  us  as  righteous  persons  ;  and  we  say 
that  it  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins  and  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness."  Calvin's 
Institutes,  vol.  2,  p.  203,  204. 

These  remarks,  let  it  be  remembered,  refer  to 
our  relation  to  God  in  point  of  law.  "Imputation 
is  never  represented  as  affecting  the  moral  char- 
acter, but  merely  the  relation  of  men  to  God  and 
his  law.  To  impute  sin,  is  to  regard  and  treat  as 
a  sinner ;  and  to  impute  righteousness  is  to  rer 


144  Righteousness  of  Christ 

gard  and  treat  as  righteous."  Hodge  on  the  Ro- 
mans, p.  225,  226.  Though  personally  consider- 
ed, we  are  sinners,  and  as  such  wholly  undeserv- 
ing ;  yet  when  we  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith , 
his  righteousness  is  so  imputed  to  us  or  reckoned 
in  law  to  our  account,  that  God  regards  and 
treats  us  as  righteous—"  the  righteousness  of  the 
law  being"  considered  as  "  fulfilled  in  us,"  because 
Christ  has  fulfilled  it  for  us.  It  is  therefore  no 
ground  for  self-complacency,  but  of  humiliation 
and  gratitucle. 

With    reference   to   those   to   whom   Christ's 
righteousness  is  imputed  for  their  justification  our 
standards  say,  "  Yet  inasmuch  as  he  [Christ]  was 
given  by  the  Father  for  them,  and  his  obedience 
and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their  stead,  and  both 
freely,  not  for  any  thing  in  them,  their  justifica- 
tion is  only  of  free  grace  ;  that  both  the  exact 
justice  and  rich  grace  of  God  might  be  glorified 
in  the  justification  of  sinners."     Thus,  according 
to  this  view  of  the  doctrine,  justice  and  mercy 
are  harmoniously  and  sweetly  blended.     While 
the  sinner  is  saved  without  conflicting  with  the 
claims  of  God's  law,  it  is  "  all  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace."  We  have  other  quotations  to  make 
on  this  subject,  but  shall  reserve  them  until  we 
present  a  few  specimens  of  the  New  Theology. 
Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Gospel  justification  is  not 
by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.     Under 


Specimens  of  New  Views.  145 

the  gospel,  sinners  are  not  justified  by  having  the 
obedience  of  Jesus  Christ  set  down  to  their  ac- 
count, as  if  he  had  obeyed  the  law  for  them  or 
in  their  stead.  It  is  not  an  uncommon  mistake 
to  suppose  that  wiien  sinners  are  justified  under 
the  gospel  they  are  accounted  righteous  in  the 
eye  of  the  law,  by  having  the  obedience  or  right- 
eousness of  Christ  imputed  to  them.  I  have  not 
time  to  go  into  an  examination  of  this  subject  now. 
I  can  only  say  that  this  idea  is  absurd  and  im- 
possible, for  the  reason  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
bound  to  obey  the  law  for  himself,  and  could  no 
more  perform  works  of  supererogation,  or  obey  on 
our  account,  than  any  body  else."*  .  .  .  .  "  Abra- 
ham's faith  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness, 
because  it  was  itself  an  act  of  righteousness,  and 
because  it  worked  by  love,  and  therefore  produ- 
ced holiness.  Justifying  faith  is  holiness,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  and  produces  holiness  of  heart  and 
life,  and  is  imputed  to  the  believer  as  holiness, 
not  instead  of  holiness."  Lectures  to  Professing 
Christians,  pp.  215,  216. 

Mr.  Barnes  says,  "  The  phrase  righteousness  of 
God  is  equivalent  to  GocFs  plan  of  justifying 
men^^ — in  regard  to  which,  he  observes,  "  It  is  not 
that  his  righteousness  becomes  ours.     This  is  not 


*  This  is  a  Socinian  objection  ;  and  on  Socinian  principles  it 
is  valid ;  but  if  Christ  be  Divine,  it  has  no  force. 
N 


146  Justification — New  Theology. 

true ;  and  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which 
that  can  be  understood.  But  it  is  God's  plan  for 
pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we  had 
not  committed  it."  Notes  on  the  Romans,  pp. 
28,  29.  Again,  (p.  94,)  in  reference  to  the 
phrase,  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  he  remarks, 
"  The  word  "  it"  here,  evidently  refers  to  the  act 
of  believing.  It  does  not  refer  to  tlm  righteous- 
ness of  another — of  God  or  of  the  Messiah ;  but 
the  discussion  is  solely  of  the  strong  act  of  Abra- 
ham's faith,  which,  in  some  sense  was  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness.  In  what  sense  this  w^as,  is 
explained  directly  after.  All  that  is  material  to 
remark  here  is,  that  the  act  of  Abraham,  the 
strong  confidence  of  his  mind  in  the  promises/of 
God,  his  unwavering  assurance  that  w^hat  God 
had  promised  he  would  perform,  was  reckoned 
for  righteousness.  The  same  thing  is  more  fully 
expressed,  verse  18,  22.  When,  therefore,  it  is 
said  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  accounted 
or  imputed  to  us  ;  when  it  said  that  his  merits 
are  transferred  and  reckoned  as  ours  ;  w^hatever 
may  be  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be  de- 
fended by  this  passage  of  scripture.  Faith  is  al- 
w^ays  an  act  of  the  mind."  ....  "  God  promises ; 
the  man  believes ;  and  this  is  the  ivhole  of  it."  It 
is  manifest  that  Mr.  Barnes  intended  in  these 
passages  to  deny  that  we  are  justified  by  the  im- 
putation of  Christ's  righteousness ;  and  with  re- 


Justification — New  Theology.  147 

gard  to  the  manner  in  which  we  are  justified,  he 
is  directly  at  variance  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  He  teaches  that  the  act  of  believing  is 
imputed  for  righteousness ;  and  the  Confession  of 
Faith  declares  expressly  to  the  contrary — "  not 
by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing,  or 
any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their 
righteousness."  The  Confession  teaches  more- 
over that  we  are  justified  on  principles  of  law 
and  justice,  as  well  as  of  grace  and  mercy — all  of 
them  harmoniously  meeting  together  in  the  cross 
of  Christ.  He  intimates  that  legal  principles 
have  nothing  to  do  in  the  matter.  "  It  [Rom.  i. 
17,]  does  not  touch  the  question,  whether  it  is  by 
imputed  righteousness  or  not ;  it  does  not  say  that 
it  is  on  legal  principles."  Notes  on  the  Romans, 
p.  28.  This  sentence,  though  it  does  not  amount 
to  a  positive  denial,  was  designed,  we  have  no 
doubt,  to  convey  this  idea.  Similar  forms  of  ex- 
pression  often  occur  in  this  volume,  where  it  is 
evident  from  the  connexion,  he  means  to  be  un- 
derstood as  denying  the  doctrine. 

The  New  Haven  divines  appear  to  entertain 
the  same  sentiments ;  as  the  the  following  from 
the  Christian  Spectator  will  serve  to  show: 
"  What  then  is  the  ground  on  which  the  penitent 
sinner  is  pardoned  ?  It  is  not  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  of  the  nature  of  punishment ;  for 
being  innocent,  he  had  no  sins  of  his  own  to  be 


148  Justification — New  Theology. 

punished  for;  and  as  he  was  a  distinct  being 
from  us,  he  could  not  be  strictly  punished  for 
ours."  ....  "  It  is  not  that  by  his  death  he  satis- 
fied the  penal  justice  of  God  ;  for  if  he  did,  pun- 
ishment could  not  be  equitably  inflicted  on  sin- 
ners, whether  penitent  or  not.  Nor  indeed  is  it 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to 
those  who  are  pardoned,  either  as  a  personal 
quality,  or  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  accounted 
to  them  as  if  it  were  theirs.  Nothing  can  be 
imputed  but  that  which  is  their  own  personal  at- 
tribute or  act.  Hence,  though  Dr.  B.*  does  in 
one  place  speak  of  the  imputation  of  Christ*s 
righteousness  to  believers,  he  obviously  refers  not 
to  its  transfer,  but  to  the  enjoyment  of  its  conse- 
quences; and  he  more  commonly  speaks  *  of  faith,* 
a  personal  quality  of  the  saints,  *  as  imputed  for 
righteousness.^  What  then  is  the  ground  on  which 
forgiveness  is  bestowed  ?  It  is  simply  this,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  removed  the  difl[iculties  which 
would  otherwise  have  eternally  barred  the  ex- 
ercise of  pardoning  mercy."  Christian  Spectator, 
September,  1830. 


*  The  person  referred  to  here  is  not  Dr.  Beman  ;  but  if  one 
will  turn  to  Beman  on  the  Atonement,  p.  51,  he  will  perceive 
that  most  of  what  is  here  said  is  more  applicable  to  him  thaa 
to  Dr.  Bellamy,  whom  it  is  believed  the  reviewer  has  treated 
unfairly.  See  quotations  from  Dr.  Bellamy  in  subsequeni 
pages. 


Observations — Views  of  Bates.  149 

How  radically  different  are  these  sentiments 
from  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  held  by  most 
evangelical  churches  !  If  they  are  scriptural,  then 
multitudes  of  christians  have  mistaken  the  vt^ay  of 
salvation.  But  if  they  are  erroneous,  (as  we  be- 
lieve them  to  be,)  then  those  who  embrace  them 
have  reason  to  examine  anew  the  foundation  of 
their  hopes  for  eternity.  The  two  systems  can 
never  be  made  to  harmonize  with  each  other.  If 
the  one  is  scriptural,  the  other  must  fall ;  and  they 
involve  points  which  affect  so  seriously  the  great 
and  everlasting  interests  of  man,  that  no  one 
ought  to  be  indifferent  with  regard  to  them.  In- 
difference here  would  be  highly  criminal 

For  the  purpose  of  shewing  how  fully  the  Old 
Theology  on  this  subject  accords  with  the  gene- 
ral voice  of  the  church  since  the  Reformation,  we 
shall  introduce  a  few  additional  quotations. 

Bates.  "  There  are  but  two  ways  of  appearing 
before  the  righteous  and  Supreme  Judge :  1.  In  sin- 
less obedience Whoever  presumes  to  ap- 
pear before  God's  judgment-seat,  in  his  own 
righteousness,  shall  be  covered  with  confusion. 
2.  By  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  This  alone 
absolves  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  saves  from  hell,  and 
can  endure  the  trial  of  God's  tribunal.  This  the 
Apostle  prized  as  his  invaluable  treasure  (Phil.  iii. 
^,)  in  comparison  of  which  "  all  other  things  are 
tut  dross  and  dung,  that  I  may  be  found  in  him, 


150  Justification — Bellamy. 

not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of 
the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by 
faith."  That  which  he  ordained  and  rewarded  in 
the  person  of  our  Redeemer,  he  cannot  but  ac- 
cept. Now  this  righteousness  is  meritoriously 
imputed  to  believers,^''  Harmony  of  the  Divine 
Attributes,  p.  298,  299. 

Bellamy.     "By  the  first  covenant,  the  constitu- 
tion with  Adam,  his  perfect  obedience  through  his 
appointed  time  of  trial,  would,  by  virtue  of  that 
constitution  or  covenant,  have  entitled  us  to  ever- 
lasting hfe.     By  the  second  covenant,  the  perfect 
righteousness  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  entitles 
all  true  beHevers  to  everlasting  hfe,  by  and  ac- 
cording to  this  new  and  living  way.     A  perfect 
righteousness  was  necessary  according  to  the  law 
of  nature,  and  a  perfect  righteousness  is  insisted 
upon  in  both  covenants.     According  to  the  law 
of  nature,  it  was  to  be  performed  personally ; 
but  according  to  both  covenants,  it  is  appointed 
to  be  performed  by  a  public  head.     According  to 
the  first  covenant  we  were  to  have  been  interest- 
ed in  the  righteousness  of  our  public  head,  by  vir- 
tue of  our  union  to  him  as  his  posterity,  for  whom 
he  was  appointed  to  act.     According  to  the  se- 
cond covenant,  we  are  interested  in  the  righte- 
ousness of  Christ,  our  public  head,  by  virtue  of 


Justification — Edwards,  151 

our  union  to  him  by  faith."     True  Religion  De- 
lineated, p.  421,  422. 

Edwards.     "  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  that  in 
order  to  a  sinner's  being  justified,  the  righteous- 
ness of  some  other  should  be  reckoned  to  his  ac- 
count ;  for  it  is  declared  that  the  person  justified 
is  looked  upon  as  (in  himself)  ungodly  ;  but  God 
neither  will  nor  can  justify  a  person  without  a 
righteousness^ ;  for  justification  is  manifestly  a /b- 
rensic  term,  as  the  word  is^used  in  scripture,  and 
a  judicial  thing,  or  the  act  of  a  judge.     So  that  if 
a  person  should  be  justified  without  a  righteous- 
ness, the  judgment  would  not  be  according  to 
truth.     The  sentence  of  justification  would  be  a 
false  sentence,  unless  there  be  a  righteousness 
performed,  that  is  by  the  judge  properly  looked 
upon  as  his.     To  say  that  God  does  not  justify 
the  sinner  without  sincere,  though  an  imperfect 
obedience,  does  not  help  the  case  ;  for  an  imper- 
fect righteousness  before  a  judge  is  no  righteous- 
ness." .  .  .  .  "  God  doth  in  the  sentence  of  justifi- 
cation pronounce  a  sinner  perfectly  righteous,  or 
else  he  would  need  a  further  justification  after 
he  is  justified."  .  ..."  By  that  [Christ's]  righte- 
ousness being  imputed  to  us,  is  meant  no  other 
than  this,  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  ac- 
cepted for  us,  and  admitted  instead  of  that  perfect 
inherent  righteousness  which  ought  to  be  in  our- 
selves.    Christ's  perfect  obedience  shall  be  reck- 


152  Justification — Edwards, 

oned  to  our  account,  so  that  we  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  it,  as  though  we  had  performed  it  our- 
selves. And  so  we  suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal 
life  is  given  us  as  the  reward  of  this  righteouss- 
ness."  .  .  .  .  "  There  is  the  very  same  need  of 
Christ's  obeying  the  law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to 
the  reward,  as  of  his  suffering  the  penalty  of  the 
law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to  our  escaping  the 
penalty ;  and  the  same  reason  why  one  should  be 

accepted  on  our  account,  as  the  other." 

"  Faith  justifies,  or  gives  an  interest  in  Christ's 
satisfaction  and  merits,  and  a  right  to  the  benefits 
procured  thereby,  as  it  thus  makes  Christ  and  the 
believer  one  in  the  acceptance  of  the  Supreme 
Judge."  .  .  .  .  "  What  is  real  in  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people,  is  the  foundation  of  what  is 
legal ;  that  is,  it  is  something  really  in  them,  and 
betw^een  them,  uniting  them,  that  is  the  ground  of 
the  suitableness  of  their  being  accounted  as  one 
by  the  judge."  .  .  .  .  "  God  does  not  give  those 
that  believe,  an  union  with  or  an  interest  in  thS 
Saviour  as  a  reward  for  faith,  but  only  because 
faith  is  the  soul's  active  uniting  with  Christ,  or  is 
itself  the  very  act  of  union,  on  their  'part^ 

Concerning  the  opinion  of  those  who  believe 
justification  to  be  nothing  more  than  pardon,  he 
observes :  "  Some  suppose  that  nothing  more  is 
intended  in  scripture  by  justification  than  barely 
the  remission  of  sins.     If  so,  it  is  very  strange,  if 


Justification — Edwards.  1 53 

we  consider  the  nature  of  the  case  ;  for  it  is  most 
evident,  and  none  will  deny,  that  it  is  with  re- 
spect to  the  rule  or  law  of  God,  we  are  under, 
that  w^e  are  said  in  scripture  to  be  either  justified 
or  condemned.  Now  what  is  it  to  justify  a  per- 
son as  the  subject  of  a  law  or  rule,  but  to  judge 
him  as  standing  right  with  respect  to  that  rule  ? 
To  justify  a  person  in  a  particular  case,  is  to  ap- 
prove of  him  as  standing  right,  as  subject  to  the 
law  in  that  case ;  and  to  justify  in  general,  is  to 
pass  him  in  judgment,  as  standing  right  in  a  state 
correspondent  to  the  law  or  rule  in  general ;  but 
certainly,  in  order  to  a  person's  being  looked  on 
as  standing  right  with  respect  to  the  rule  in  gene- 
ral, or  in  a  state  corresponding  with  the  law  of 
God,  more  is  needful  than  not  having  the  guilt  of 
sin  ;  for  whatever  that  law  is,  whether  a  new  or 
an  old  one,  doubtless  something  positive  is  need- 
ed in  order  to  its  being  answered.  We  are  no 
more  justified  by  the  voice  of  the  law,  or  of  him 
that  judges  according  to  it,  by  a  mere  pardon  of 
sin,  than  Adam,  our  first  surety,  was  justified  by 
the  law  at  the  first  point  of  his  existence,  before 
he  had  fulfilled  the  obedience  of  the  law,  or  had 
so  much  as  any  trial,  whether  he  would  fulfil  it 
or  no.  If  Adam  had  finished  his  course  of  per- 
fect obedience,  he  would  have  been  justified  ;  and 
certainly  his  justification  would  have  implied 
something  more  than  what  is  merely  negative  ;  he 


154  Justification — Edwards. 

would  have  been  approved  of,  as  having  fulfilled 
the  righteousness  of  the  law,  and  accordingly 
would  have  been  adjudged  to  the  reward  of  it. 
So  Christ,  our  second  surety,  was  not  justified  till 
he  had  done  the  work  the  Father  had  appointed 
him  ;  and  kept  the  Father's  commandments 
through  all  trials  ;  and  then  in  his  resurrection  he 
was  justified.  When  he  had  been  put  to  death 
in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  iii. 
18,  then  he  that  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  was  jus- 
tified in  the  Spirit,  1  Tim.  iii.  16  ;  but  God,  when 
he  justified  him  in  raising  him  from  the  dead,  did 
not  only  release  him  from  his  humiliation  for  sin, 
and  acquit  him  from  any  further  suflering  or  abase- 
ment for  it,  but  admitted  him  to  that  eternal  and 
immortal  life,  and  to  the  beginning  of  that  exalta" 
tion  that  was  the  reward  of  what  he  had  done. 
And  indeed  the  justification  of  a  believer  is  no 
other  than  his  being  admitted  to  communion  in 
the  justification  of  this  head  and  surety  of  all  be- 
lievers ;  for  as  Christ  suffered  the  punishment  of 
sin,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  our  surety  ;  so 
when,  after  this  suffering,  he  was  raised  from  the 
dead,  he  was  therein  justified,  not  as  a  private 
person,  but  as  the  surety  and  representative  of  all 
that  should  believe  in  him." .  ..."  To  suppose 
that  all  Christ  does  is  only  to  make  atonement 
for  us  by  suffering,  is  to  make  him  our  Saviour  but 
in  part.    It  is  to  rob  him  of  half  his  glory  as  a 


Veiios  of  Di\  Alexander.  1 55 

Saviour.  For  if  so,  all  that  he  does  is  to  deliver 
us  from  hell ;  he  does  not  purchase  heaven  for 
us."     Discourse  on  Justification. 

Alexander.  "  Some  have  attempted  to  evade 
the  doctrine  [of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness] by  alleging,  that  not  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  but  its  effects  are  imputed  to  us.  They 
who  talk  thus  do  not  seem  to  understand  what 
they  say.  It  must  be  by  the  imputation  of  the 
righteousness  that  the  good  effects  are  derived  to 
us ;  but  the  imputation  of  the  effects  themselves 
cannot  be.  To  talk  of  imputing  pardon — of  im- 
puting justification — imputing  peace,  &c.  is  to  use 
words  without  meaning.  What  we  are  inquiring 
after  is  the  reason  why  these  blessings  become 
ours.  It  cannot  be  on  account  of  our  own  right- 
eousness, which  is  of  the  law  ;  it  must  be  on  ac- 
count of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  The  next 
question  is,  how  does  that  righteousness  avail  to 
obtain  for  us  pardon  and  justification  and  peace 
with  (rod  ?  The  answer  is,  by  imputation  ;  that  is, 
it  is  set  down  to  our  credit.  God  accepts  it  on 
our  behalf ;  yea,  he  bestows  it  upon  us.  If  there 
be  any  such  thing  as  imputation,  it  must  be  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  itself,  and  the  benefits 
connected  with  salvation  flow  from  this  imputa- 
tion. We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  can  only  justify  us,  by  being  im- 
puted to  us." 


1 56  Jxistificatiow — Alexander. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  this  doctrine 
"  makes  the  sinner's  justification  a  matter  of  justice, 
and  not  of  grace/'  he  says,  "  All  theories  which 
suppose  that  grace  is  exercised  at  the  expense  of 
justice,  or  that  in  order  to  the  manifestation  of 
grace,  law  and  justice  must  be  suspended,  labor 
under  a  radical  mistake  in  theology,  which  cannot 
but  introduce  darkness  and  perplexity  into  their 
whole  system.  Indeed,  if  law  and  justice  could 
have  been  set  aside  or  suspended,  there  had  been 
no  occasion  for  the  plan  of  redemption.  The 
only  reason  why  sinners  could  not  be  saved  was, 
that  the  law  and  justice  of  God  stood  in  the  way ; 
but  if,  by  a  sovereign  act,  these  obstacles  could 
have  been  removed,  salvation  might  have  been 
accomplished  without  an  atonement.  But  though 
the  scriptures,  every  where,  ascribe  salvation  to 
GRACE,  FiiEE  GRACE  ;  yct  they  never  teach  that 
this  grace  requires  God  to  deny  himself,  as  to  his 
attributes  of  justice  ;  or  that  law  and  justice  are 
at  all  interfered  with ;  or  for  a  moment  suspend- 
ed. On  the  contrary,  the  idea  is  continually  kept 
in  view,  that  grace  reigns  through  righteousness  ; 
that  the  propitiation  of  Christ  is  necessary,  that 
God  may  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  the  un- 
godly. Redemption  is  the  obtaining  deliverance 
by  paying  a  price  ;  and  yet  redemption  and  grace, 
so  far  from  being  inconsistent,  are  constantly 
united,  as  parts  of  the  same  glorious  plan,  accord- 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Alexander.  157 

ing  to  the  scriptures.     "  In  whom  we  have  re- 
demption through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace."    (Eph. 
i.  7.)     The  only  way  in  which  it  was  possible  for 
grace  to  be  exercised,  was  by  a  plan  which  made 
provision  for  the  complete  satisfaction  of  law  and 
justice.     This  was  the  great  problem,  to  the  so- 
lution of  which  no  finite  wisdom  was  competent ; 
but  which  the  infinite  wisdom  of  Jehovah  has  ac- 
complished by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  his  own 
dear  Son.     What  is  objected,  therefore,  is  a  thing 
essential  to  the  exercise  of  grace.     And  the  whole 
appearance  of  plausibility  in  the  objection  arises 
from  not  distinguishing  between  God's  dealings 
with  our  substitute  and  with  us.     To  him  there 
was  no  mercy  shown ;  the  whole  process  was  in 
strict  execution  of  law  and  justice.     The  last  far- 
thing due,  so  to  speak,  was  exacted  of  our  Sure- 
ty, when  he  stood  in  our  place,  under  the  holy  and 
sin  avenging  law  of  God.     But  this  exercise  of 
justice  towards  him  was  the  very  thing  which 
opened  the  way  for  superabounding  mercy  to- 
wards us.     And  this  cost  at  which  the  sluices  of 
grace  were  opened,  so  far  from  lessening,  consti- 
tutes its  riches  and  glory."* 


*  This  extract  from  Dr.  Alexander,  and  those  which  have  been 
before  given  from  his  pen,  are  contained  in  a  short  and  able 
Treatise  on  Justification  by  Faith,  written  by  him  for  the  Pres- 
O 


158  Justification  hy  Faith. 

We  will  close  our  extracts  by  a  few  sentences 
bearing  upon  the  New  School  doctrine,  that  the 
act   of  believing   is   imputed   for   righteousness. 
They  shall  be  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Doddridge,  in 
his  note  on  the  phrase,  "  Imputed  to  him  [Abra- 
ham] for  righteousness ;"  which  is  the  principal 
text  relied  upon  to  prove  the  new  doctrine.     Says 
he,  "  I  think  nothing  can  be  easiei"  than  to  under- 
stand how  this  may  be  said  in  full  consistence 
with  our  being  justified  by  the  imputation  of.  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  our  being  treated 
by  God  as  rigliteous,  for  the  sake  of  what  he  has 
done  and  suffered :  for  though  this  be  the  merito- 
rious cause  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  yet  faith 
may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  us  in  order  to  our 
being  justified  or  becoming  righteous:  that  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  view  which  J  have  elsewhere  more 
largely  stated,  as  we  are  charged  as  debtors  in 
the  book  of  God's  account,  what  Christ  has  done 
in  fulfilling  all  righteousness  for  us  is  charged  as 
the  grand  balance  of  the  account ;  but  that  it  may 
appear  that  we  are  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
gospel  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this,  it  is  also  en- 
tered in  the  book  of  God's  remembrance  "  that 
we  are  believers :"  and  this  appearing,  we  are 


byterian  Tract  Society.  This  tract  and  the  other  tracts  pub- 
hshed  by  that  Society  we  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  cur 
readers. 


Remarks  of  Doddridge,  159 

graciously  discharged,  yea,  rewarded,  as  if  we 
ourselves  had  been  perfectly  innocent  and  obe- 
dient." 

In  concluding  the  present  chapter  we  wish  a- 
gain  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  inti- 
mate connection  which  exists  between  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  and  most  of  the  other  doc- 
trines wiiich  have  been  brought  to  view  in  the 
preceding  pages.  Though  this  has  been  ah'eady 
alluded  to,  when  speaking  of  imputation  and  ori- 
ginal sin,  the  truth  of  the  remark  was  not,  per- 
haps, so  obvious  as  it  must  be  now.  The  feder- 
al headship  of  Adam,  the  imputation  of  the  guilt 
of  his  first  sin  to  his  posterity,  original  sin,  the  a- 
tonement  and  justification,  are  so  closely  connect- 
ed, that  if  we  have  incorrect  views  with  regard 
to  the  one,  w^e  shall  err  respecting  the  others. 
The  views  concerning  these  doctrines  w^hich  we 
regard  as  scriptural,  and  which  we  have  endeav- 
ored to  substantiate,  so  far  as  the  design  of  the 
work  would  permit,  are  all  different  parts  of  the 
same  system.  If  one  of  them  be  materially  modi- 
fied or  denied,  it  involves  a  similar  modification  or 
denial  of  the  whole.  "  While  men  are  disputing, 
says  Dr.  Bellamy,  against  the  original  constitution 
with  Adam,*  they  unawares  undermine   the  se- 

*  Dr.  Bellamy's  views  concerning  God's  covenant  with  Ad- 
am,  original  sin,  &c.  are  the  same  with  those  of  Pres.  Edwards ; 
from  whom  extracts  on  this  subject  have  been  given.  See  True 
Religion  Delineated,  p.  269,  271. 


160  Remarks  of  Bellamy. 

cond  constitution,  which  is  the  foundation  of  all 
our  hopes.  Eager  to  avoid  Adam's  first  sin, 
whereby  comes  condemnation,  they  render  of 
none  effect  Christ's  righteousness,  whereby  comes 
justification."  .  .  .  . "  What  remains,  therefore,  but 
Deism  and  Infidelity  ?" 

Truth  is  harmonious.  The  several  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  like  the  stones  in  Solomon's  temple, 
unite  together,  without  the  use  of  an  "  ax  or  ham- 
mer" to  pare  down  their  edges.  But  if  one  be 
rejected,  there  is  not  only  a  vacancy  left  in  the 
building,  which  no  art  or  ingenuity  can  supply, 
but  the  edifice  itself  is  in  danger  of  falling. 


CHAP.  VII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

That  the  fall  of  man  has  not  released  us  from 
obligation  to  love  and  obej^  God,  is  maintain- 
ed by  all.  This,  however,  it  is  believed,  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  doctrine,  that  from  our 
"  original  corruption,  w^e  are  utterly  indisposed, dis- 
abled, and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil."  As  our  inability  is  not  only 
our  misfortune,  but  our  sin,  it  can  never  destroy 
moral  obligation.  Upon  these  points  Calvinistic 
writers  are  generally  agreed.  But  as  the  subject 
is  attended  with  difficulties,  which  some  have  been 
anxious  to  avoid,  a  distinction  has  been  resorted 
to  between  natural  and  moral  inability ;  the  lat- 
ter of  which,  it  is  supposed,  is  the  inability  under 
which  the  sinner  lies ;  and  that  he  still  possesses 
natural  ability  to  do  his  duty.  By  this  it  is  meant 
that  he  merely  has  the  physical  powers,  or  the/«c- 
ulties  of  mind,  which  are  requisite  to  enable  him 
to  do  what  God  requires — but  that  his  mind  is, 
nevertheless,  wholly  disinclined  to  that  which  is 
good  ;  or  in  other  words,  that  he  is  morally  una- 
ble to  exercise  holy  affections.  This  distinction, 
it  might  be  easily  shown,  is  not  without  found  a- 


162  Human  Ahility, 


tion ;  and  yet  when  applied  to  the  subject  of  re- 
ligion, it  is  doubted  by  many,  whether  its  use  re- 
ally solves  any  difficulties,  or  is  productive  of  any 
practical  good  ;  chiefly  from  the  ambiguity  of  the 
terms,  and  their  liability  to  be  misunderstood. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  discuss 
this  question.  We  have  introduced  it  in  order  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  observation,  that  those 
whose  sentiments  we  are  now  considering,  retain 
the  term  natural  in  comiection  with  ability  ;  and 
thus  appear  to  accord  with  those  who  are  in  the 
habit  of  making  the  distinction  to  which  we  have 
referred ;  though  in  reality  they  occupy  very  dif- 
ferent ground.  Though  when  they  speak  of  abili- 
ty, they  frequently  annex  to  it  the  word  statural ; 
they  seldom  speak  of  mability  at  all — ^but  produce 
the  impression  that  the  ability  which  they  preach 
is  fully  adequate  to  enable  the  sinner  independ- 
ently of  Divine  grace,  to  do  all  that  God  re- 
quires. 

This  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Porter  concerning 
Dr.  Beechers  preaching,  prior  to  1829.  In  a  let- 
ter addressed  to  him  which  has  been  published  in 
various  papers,  he  says,  "You  exalt  one  part  of 
Calvinism,  viz.  human  agency,  so  as  vittually  to 
lose  sight  of  its  correlate  human  dependence,  and 
thus  make  regeneration  so  much  a  result  of  mf«/z* 
and  instrumentality,  that  the  sinner  is  born  rather 
'  of  blood  or  of  the  will  of  man  than  of  God.' " 


Views  of  Dr,  Beecher.  163 

A  similar  opinion  has  been  formed  by  some 
concerning  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  published 
in  1836.  Dr.  Harvey  says  concerning  them, 
"  Dr.  Beecher's  Views,  it  is  true,  have  many 
shades  and  shadov^^s  of  orthodoxy.  The  super- 
structure looks  fair  and  imposing ;  but  the  philos- 
ophy is  Pelagian,  and  all  the  orthodoxy  in  his 
*  Views'  is  undermined  by  a  false  theory  of 
moral  agency,  on  which  the  whole  is  founded." 
Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  p.  6.  The  following 
quotations  will  show  what  foundation  Dr.  Harvey 
had  for  this  opinion. 

Dr.  Beecher  says,  (p.  30,  31,)  "That  man  pos- 
sesses since  the  fall  the  powers  of  agency  requi- 
site to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  the  possibility/ 
of  obedience,  is  a  matter  of  notoriety.  Not  one  of 
the  powers  of  mind  which  constituted  ability  be- 
fore the  fall  have  been  obliterated  by  that  event. 
All  that  has  ever  been  conceived,  or  that  can  now 
be  conceived,  as  entering  into  the  constitution  of 
a  free  agent,  capable  of  choosing  life  or  death,  or 
which  did  exist  in  Adam  when  he  could  and  did 
obey,  yet  mutable,  survive  the  fall."  He  says, 
(p.  31,  32,)  "Choice,  in  its  very  nature,  implies 
the  possibility  of  a  different  or  contrary  election 
to  that  which  is  made.  There  is  always  an  alter- 
native to  that  which  the  mind  decides  on,  with  the 

conscious  power  of  choosing  either.''' "  The 

question  of  free  will  is  not  whether  man  chooses — 


164  Human  Ability. 

this  is  notorious,  none  deny  it  ;  but  whether  his 
choice  is  free  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity." 
Again,  (p.  35)  "  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of 
other  or  contrary  choice,  is  the  immemorial  doc- 
trine of  fatahsm  :  And  further,  (p.  47,)  "  This 
doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of  choice,  commen- 
surate ivith  obligation,  has  been,  and  is,  the  re- 
ceived doctrine  of  the  universal  orthodox  church, 
from  the  primitive  age  down  to  this  day." 

The  first  of  these  propositions  speaks  without 
any  qualification  of  the  "possibility  of  obedience" 
in  reference  to  fallen  man — and  makes  this  essen- 
tial to  obligation.  The  second  and  third  predi- 
cate this  possibility  of  obedience  upon  the  posses- 
sion of  a  self  determining  power  of  the  will,  by 
w^hich  we  can  not  only  choose,  but  alter  our  voli- 
tions at  pleasure.  This,  according  to  his  view,  is 
essential  to  free  agency.  The  third  affirms  that 
"  this  statural  ability  of  choice,'^  by  which  we  un- 
derstand him  to  mean,  the  power  which  we  natu- 
rally possess  as  free  agents,  over  our  volitions, 
"  is  commensurate  with  obligations^  If  these  are 
the  ideas  which  he  intends  to  convey,  it  follows, 
that  man  since  the  fall  possesses  all  the  powers 
which  are  requisite  to  enable  him  to  change  his 
sinful  volitions  for  those  which  are  holy :  or,  to 
use  the  language  of  Dr.  Harvey,  "  that  man  pos- 
sesses, since  the  fall,  the  powers  of  agency  requi- 
site to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  possessing  a 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Harvey.  165 

power  of  contrary  choice,  by  which  he  can  re- 
cover himself  from  perfect  sinfulness  to  perfect 
holiness."  Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  p.  80,  81. 
"  Natural  ability  of  choice,  commensurate  with 
obligation,  says  Dr.  Harvey,  must  mean  some- 
thing more  than  the  mere  powder  of  choice ;  it 
means  natural  ability  not  only  to  do  right,  if  one 
is  disposed,  but  natural  ability  to  overcome  every 
moral  impediment.  In  other  words,  it  means  nat- 
ural ability  to  overcome  moral  inability,  or  natural 
ability  which  can  produce  ability  enough  to  over- 
come moral  inability.  Thus,  as  I  have  before  had 
occasion  to  remark,  the  great  object  is  to  render 
man,  in  his  fallen  state,  independent  of  the  grace 
of  God.  To  accomplish  this  purpose.  Dr.  Beecher 
introduces  the  extra  powder  of  contrary  choice  as 
an  addition  to  the  simple  power  of  choice,  and 
which  he  deems  sufficient  to  equal  obligation,  and 
if  so,  to  bring  the  sinner  out  of  darkness  into  light, 
to  raise  him  from  death  to  life.  Thus  Dr.  Beecher, 
in  effect,  coincides  with  Pelagius,  who  denied  all 
moral  inability.  Pelagius  takes  the  city  by  un- 
dermining and  sinking  the  wall ;  Dr,  Beecher  by 
building  an  embankment  which  shall  overtop  the 
wall.  One  sinks  the  wall  to  the  surface,  the  other 
raises  the  surface  to  the  wall's  top  ;  and  in  both 
cases,  the  obstacle  of  moral  inability  is  annihila- 
ted."    Harvey  on  Moral  Agency,  p.  115,  116, 


166  Human  Ability. 


We  have  exhibited  Dr.  Beecher's  views  in  the 
above  form,  because  the  language  of  his  several 
propositions  is  such,  that  the  sentiments  intended 
to  be  conveyed  are  not  perfectly  obvious  upon  a 
simple  perusal.  The  deductions  which  we  have 
made,  or  which  we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Harvey, 
we  do  not,  of  course,  ascribe  to  Dr.  Beecher,  as 
expressing  what  he  believes — but  if  we  have  not 
mistaken  his  views,  they  appear  to  lead,  by  legit- 
imate consequence,  to  these  conclusions — and  to 
some  of  them  it  is  probable  he  would  not  refuse 
his  assent;  since  it  would  be  going  no  farther 
than  has  been  expressed  by  two  or  three  who  be- 
long to  the  same  school. 

Says  Mr.  Duffield,  "  Not  much  less  deluding 
are  the  system  and  tactics  of  those  who  fearing 
to  invade  the  province  of  the  Spirit,  are  careful  to 
remind  the  sinner,  at  every  turn,  that  he  is  utterly 
unable  by  his  ow^n  unassisted  powers  either  to 
believe  or  to  repent  to  the  saving  of  his  soul.  It 
might  as  truly  be  said,  that  he  cannot  rise  and  walk, 
by  his  own  unassisted  powers."  Work  on  Re- 
generation, p.  542. 

Mr.  Finney's  language  is  that  "  as  God  requires 
men  to  make  to  themselves  a  new  heart,  on  pain 
of  eternal  death,  it  is  the  strongest  possible  evi- 
dence that  they  are  able  to  do  it — to  say  he  has 
commanded  them  to  do  it,  without  telhng  them 
they  are  ahle^  is  consummate  trifling."  .  ..."  If 


Views  of  Duffield  and  Fin ney.  1 67 

the  sinner  ever  has  a  new  heart,  he  must  obey 
the  command  of  the  text,  and  make  it  himself." 
.  .  .  .  "  Sinner  I  instead  of  waiting  and  praying  for 
God  to  change  your  heart,  you  should  at  once 
summon  up  your  powers,  put  forth  the  effort,  and 
change  the  governing  preference  of  your  mind. 
But  here,  some  one  may  ask,  Can  the  carnal 
mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God,  change  itself? 
I  have  already  said  that  this  text  in  the  original 
reads,  '  The  minding  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against 
God.'  This  minding  of  the  flesh  then  is  a  choice 
or  preference  to  gratify  the  flesh.  Now  it  is  in- 
deed absurd  to  say,  that  a  choice  can  change  it- 
self; but  it  is  not  absurd  to  say,  that  the  agent 
who  exercises  this  choice  can  change  it.  The 
sinner  that  minds  the  flesh,  can  change  his  mind, 
and  mind  God."  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects, 
p.  18,  37,  38. 

This  exposition  of  the  "  carnal  mind"  is  a  fa- 
vourite one  with  writers  of  this  class.  Says  Mr. 
Barnes,  "  The  amount  of  his  [Paul's]  aflirmation 
is  simply,  that  the  minding  of  the  flesh,  the  su- 
preme attention  to  its  dictates  and  desires,  is  not 
and  cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God.     They 

are  wholly  contradictory  and  irreconcileable." 

"  But  whether  the  man  himself  might  not  obey 
the  law,  whether  he  has,  or  has  not,  abiHty  to  do 
it,  is  a  question  which  the  Apostle  does  not  touch, 
and  on  which  this  passage  should  not  be  adduced." 


168  Human  Ability > 


Notes  on  the  Romans,  p.  164.  In  commenting 
on  the  phrase  "  neither  indeed  can  be,"  he  repeats 
the  same  sentiment  concerning  abiHty  which  is 
expressed  above.  Also  in  his  exposition  of  the 
passage,  "  when  we  were  without  strength  Christ 
died  for  the  ungodly."  "  The  remark  of  the 
Apostle  here,"  says  he,  "  has  reference  only  to  the 
condition  of  the  race  before  an  atonement  is  made. 
It  does  not  pertain  to  the  question  whether  man 
has  strength  to  repent  and  to  believe,  after  an 
atonement  is  made,  which  is  a  very  different  in- 
quiry.'* Though  Mr.  Barnes  expresses  himself 
with  much  more  caution  than  Messrs.  Finney  and 
Duffield,  it  is  apparent  that  he  favours  their  sen- 
timents. 

There  is  so  striking  a  similarity  between  the 
views  of  these  men  and  those  of  Dr.  John  Taylor 
of  Norwich,  that  it  will  be  appropriate  to  refer  to 
the  latter ;  with  the  remarks  of  President  Ed- 
wards upon  them,  shewing  what  he  thought  of 
their  tendency.  They  are  contained  in  his  work 
on  Original  Sin.  "  It  will  follow,"  says  he,  "  on 
our  author's  principles  [Dr.  Taylor's  principles] 
not  only  with  respect  to  infants,  but  even  adult 
persons,  that  redemption  is  needless,  and  Christ  is 
dead  in  vain.  Not  only  is  there  no  need  of  Christ's 
redemption  in  order  to  deliverance  from  any  con- 
sequences of  Adawis  sin,  but  also  in  order  to  per- 
fect freedom  from  personal  sin,  and  all  its  evil 


Remarks  of  Edioards.  169 

consequences.  For  God  has  made  other  sufficient 
provision  for  that,  viz.  a  sufficient  power  and  ability, 
in  all  mankind,  to  do  all  their  duty  and  wliolly  to 
avoid  sin.  Yea  he  insists  upon  it,  that  "  when 
men  have  not  sufficient  powder  to  do  their  duty, 
they  have  no  duty  to  do.  We  may  safely  and  as- 
suredly conclude,  (says  he,)  that  mankind  in  all 
parts  of  the  world  have  sufficient  power  to  do 
the  duty  which  God  requires  of  them  ;  and  that 
he  requires  of  them  no  3iore  than  they  have  suf- 
ficient powers  to  do."  And  in  another  place, 
"  God  has  given  powers  equal  to  the  duty  which 
he  expects."  And  he  expresses  a  great  dislike  at 
R.  R.'s  supposing  that  our  propensities  to  evil,  and 
temptations  are  too  strong  to  be  effectually 
and  constantly  resisted  ;  or  that  we  are  una- 
voidably sinful  IN  a  degree  ;  that  our  appetites 
and  passions  will  be  breaking  out,  notwithstand- 
ing our  everlasting  watchfulness."  These  things 
fully  imply  that  men  have  in  their  own  natural 
ability  sufficient  means  to  avoid  sin,  and  to  be  per- 
fectly free  from  it ;  and  so  from  all  the  bad  con- 
sequences of  it.  And  if  the  means  are  sufficient, 
then  there  is  no  need  of  more  ;  and  therefore 
there  is  no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to  it. 
What  Dr.  T.  says  fully  implies  that  it  would  be 
unjust  in  God  to  give  mankind  being  in  such  cir- 
cumstances, as  that  they  would  be  more  hkely  to 
sin,  so  as  to  be  exposed  to  final  misery,  than  other- 
p 


170  Human  Ability, 


wise.  Hence  then,  without  Christ  and  his  re- 
demption, and  without  any  grace  at  all,  mere 
JUSTICE  makes  sufficient  provision  for  our  being 
free  from  sin  and  misery  by  our  own  power." 

"  If  all  mankind,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
have  sufficient  power  to  do  their  whole  duty, 
without  being  sinful  in  any  degree,  then  they 
have  sufficient  power  to  obtain  righteousness  by 
the  law  :  and  then,  according  to  the  apostle  Paul, 
Christ  is  dead  in  vain,"  Gal.  ii.  21.  "  If  right- 
eousness come  by  law,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain  ;" — 
by  law,  or  the  rule  of  right  action,  as  our  author 
explains  the  phrase.  And  according  to  the  sense 
in  which  he  explains  this  very  place,  "  it  would 
have  frustrated,  or  rendered  useless,  the  grace  of 
God,  if  Christ  died  to  accomplish  what  was  or 
MIGHT  have  been  effected  by  law  itself  without  his 
death.  So  that  it  most  clearly  follows  from  his  own 
doctrine,  that  Christ  is  dead  in  vain,  and  the 
grace  of  God  is  useless.  The  same  apostle  says, 
if  there  had  been  a  law  which  could  Itave  given 
life,  verily  righteousness  should  have  been  by  the 
law,  Gal.  iii.  21  ;  i.  e.  (according  to  Dr.  T's 
own  sense,)  if  there  was  a  law,  that  man,  in  his 
present  state,  had  sufficient  power  to  fulfil.  For 
Dr.  T.  supposes  the  reason  why  the  law  could 
not  give  life,  to  be  "  not  because  it  was  weak  in 
itself,  but  through  the  weakness  of  our  flesh,  and 
the  infirmity  of  human  nature  in  the   present 


Remarks  of  Edwards.  171 

state."  But  he  says,  "  We  are  under  a  mild  dis- 
pensation of  GRACE  making  allowance  for  our  in- 
firmities." By  our  infirmities,  we  may,  on  good 
ground,  suppose  he  means  that  infirmity  of  hu- 
man nature,  which  he  gives  as  the  reason  why 
the  law  cannot  give  life.  But  what  grace  is 
there  for  making  that  allowance  for  our  infirmi- 
ties, which  justice  itself  (according  to  his  doc- 
trine,) most  absolutely  requires,  as  he  supposes 
Divine  justice  exactly  proportions  our  duty  to  our 
ability  ? 

"  Agam,  if  it  be  said,  that  although  Christ's  re- 
demption was  not  necessary  to  preserve  men 
from  beginning  to  sin,  and  getting  into  a  course 
of  sin,  because  they  have  sufficient  power  in 
themselves  to  avoid  it ;  yet  it  may  be  necessary 
to  deliver  men,  after  they  have  by  their  own  fol- 
ly brought  themselves  under  the  dominion  of  evil 
appetites  and  passions.  I  answer,  if  it  be  so,  that 
men  need  deliverance  from  those  habits  and  pas- 
sions, which  are  become  too  strong  for  them,  yet 
that  deliverance,  on  our  author's  principles,  would 
be  no  salvation  from  sin.  For  the  exercise  of  pas- 
sions which  are  too  strong  for  us,  and  which  we 
cannot  overcome,  is  necessary :  and  he  strongly 
urges,  that  a  necessary  evil  can  be  no  moral  evil. 
It  is  true  it  is  the  effect  of  evil,  as  it  is  the  eflfect  of 
a  bad  practice,  while  the  man  had  power  to  have 
avoided  it.     But  then,  according  to  Dr.  T.  that 


172  Human  Ability. 

evil  cause  alone  is  sin ;  for  he  says  expressly, 
'  The  cause  of  every  effect  is  alone  chargeable 
with  the  effect  it  produceth,  or  which  proceedeth 
from  it.'  And  as  to  that  sin  which  was  the  cause, 
the  man  needed  no  Saviom-  from  that,  having  had 
sufficient  power  in  himself  to  have  avoided  it.  So 
that  it  follows  by  our  author's  scheme,  that  none 
of  mankind,  neither  infants  nor  adult  persons, 
neither  the  more  or  less  vicious,  neither  Jews  nor 
Gentiles,  neither  heathens  nor  christians,  ever  did 
or  even  could  stand  in  any  need  of  a  Saviour  ;  and 
that  with  respect  to  all,  the  truth  is,  Christ  is 
dead  in  vain. 

"  If  any  should  say,  although  all  mankind  in  all 
ages  have  sufficient  ability  to  do  their  whole  du- 
ty, and  so  may  by  their  own  power  enjoy  perfect 
freedom  from  sin,  yet  God  foresaw  that  they 
would  sin,  and  that  after  they  had  sinned  they 
would  need  Christ's  death.  I  answer,  it  is  plain, 
by  what  the  apostle  says  in  those  places  which 
were  just  now  mentioned,  (Gal.  ii.  21,  and  iii.  21,) 
that  God  would  have  esteemed  it  needless  to 
give  his  Son  to  die  for  men,  unless  there  had 
been  a  prior  impossibility  of  their  having  righteous- 
ness by  any  law ;  and  that  if  there  had  been  a 
law  which  could  have  given  life,  this  other  way 
by  the  death  of  Christ  would  not  have  been  pro- 
vided. And  this  appears  so  agreable  to  our  au- 
thor's own  sense  of  things,  by  his  words  which 


Regeneration — New  Theology.  173 

have  been  cited,  wherein  he  says,  '  It  would  have 
FRUSTRATED  OF  rendered  useless  the  grace  of 
God,  if  Christ  died  to  accomphsh  what  was  or 
MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN  effected  by  law  itself,  without 
his  death/  " 

The  new  views  concerning  human  ability  have 
an  exact  counterpart  in  the  description  which  is 
given  by  different  writers  of  this  school,  of  the 
work  of  regeneration,  and  the  agency  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit.  According  to  them,  regeneration  con- 
sists in  the  mere  change  of  the  governing  purpose 
or  preference  of  the  soul — by  which  the  sinner 
renounces  the  world  as  the  supreme  object  of 
pursuit,  and  makes  choice  of  God  and  heavenly 
things.  Prompted  by  self-love,  or  in  other  words, 
by  a  constitutional  desire  for  happiness,  which  is 
neither  sinful  nor  holy,  and  the  selfish  principle 
in  his  heart  being  suspended,  he  enters  upon  a 
serious  consideration  and  comparison  of  the  vari- 
ous objects  of  happiness :  until  he  discovers  the 
infinite  superiority  of  God  and  Divine  things  to 
every  other  object.  Then,  by  "desperate  efforts," 
he  fixes  his  heart  upon  them  ;  and  thus  becomes 
a  christian.  The  part  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
performs  in  the  work,  is,  to  present  truth  power- 
fully before  the  mind  in  the  form  of  motives,  like 
an  advocate  arguing  a  cause  before  a  jury ;  or 
as  one  man  influences  and  persuades  another  in 
the  common  affairs  of  life  ;  though  with  infinite- 


11'4  Regeneration, 


ly  greater  skill  and  force  than  can  be  employed 
by  any  human  agent.  His  attention  is  thus  ar- 
rested— he  revolves  in  his  mind  the  points  at  is- 
sue— and  at  length  being  convinced  where  his 
true  interest  lies,  he  is  prevailed  upon  by  the 
moral  suasion  of  the  Spirit,  to  change  the  govern- 
ing purpose  or  preference  of  his  mind,  and  to 
choose  God  as  his  supreme  portion. 

The  language  of  Dr.  Taylor  is  as  follows: 
"  We  proceed  to  say  then,  that  before  the  act  o 
the  will  or  heart  in  which  the  sinner  first  prefers 
God  to  any  other  object,  the  object  of  the  prefer- 
ence must  be  viewed  or  estimated  as  the  greatest 
good.  _  Before  the  object  can  be  viewed  as  the 
greatest  good  it  must  be  compared  with  other 
objects,  as  both  are  sources  or  means  of  good. 
Before  this  act  of  comparing,  there  must  be  an 
act  dictated  not  by  selfisiiness  but  self-love,  in 
which  the  mind  determines  to  direct  its  thoughts 
to  the  objects  for  the  sake  of  considering  their 
relative  value,  of  forming  a  judgment  respecting 
it ;  and  of  choosing  one  or  the  other  as  the  chief 
good."     Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp.  19,  20. 

"  Divine  truth  does  not  become  a  means  to  this 
end,  until  the  selfish  principle  so  long  cherished  in 
the  heart  is  suspended ;  and  the  mind  is  left  to 
the  control  of  that  constitutional  desire  of  happi- 
ness which  is  an  original  principle  of  our  nature^ 
Then  it  is,  we  apprehend,  that  God  and  the  world 


Views  of  D7\  Taylor,  ^-c.  175 

are  contemplated  by  the  mind  as  objects  of  choice, 
substantially  as  they  would  be  by  a  being  who 
had  just  entered  on  existence,  and  who  was  called 
upon  for  the  first  time  tO'  select  the  one  or  the  oth- 
er as  his  supreme  good."  Ch.  Spectator,  1829, 
p.  210. 

"  Now  we  readily  concede  that  sinners  never 
use  the  means  of  regeneration  with  a  holy  heart, 
nor  with  an  unholy  or  sinful  heart.  But  does  it 
therefore  follow^  that  they  never  use  them  with 
any  heart  at  all  ?  What  is  that  heart  with  which 
God  in  his  law  requires  sinners  to  love  him  ? 
Surely  not  a  heart  which  is  holy  before  they  love 
him.  Still  less  with  a  sinful  heart ;  and  yet  he 
requires  them  to  love  Him  with  some  heart,  even 
their  heart.  Is  this  no  heart  at  all  ?  We  think 
on  the  contrary  it  is  a  real  heart,  a  heart  with 
which  sinners  can  love  God,  even  loithout  the  grace 
of  the  Spirit,  and  certainly  with  it."  Ch.  Spec. 
1830,  p.  149,  150. 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency,  we 
believe  Dr.  Taylor  has  not  pubHshed  his  views. 
But  the  author  of  "  Letters  on  the  New-Haven 
Theology"  informs  us  that  his  sentiments  corres- 
pond with  those  of  Mr.  Finney. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  "  The  Spirit  pours  the  expos- 
tulation home  with  such  power,  that  the  sinner 
turns.  Now,  in  speaking  of  this  change,  it  is  per- 
fectly proper  to  say,  that  the  Spirit  turned  him^ 
just  as  you  would  say  of  a  man  who  had  persua- 


176  Regeneration, 


o 


(led  another  to  change  his  mind  on  the  subject  of 
politics,  that  he  had  converted  him  and  brought 

him  over." "He  does  not  act   by  direct 

physical  contact  upon  the  mind,  but  He  uses  the 
truth  as  His  sword  to  pierce  the  sinner ;  and  the 
motives  presented  in  the  gospel  are  the  instru- 
ments He  uses  to  change  the  sinner's  heart.  Some 
have  doubted  this,  and  supposed  that  it  is  equiv- 
alent to  denying  the  Spirit's  agency  altogether  to 
maintain  that  He  converts  sinners  by  motives. 
Others  have  denied  the  possibility  of  changing  the 
heart  by  motives.  But  did  not  the  serpent 
change  Adam's  heart  by  motives  ;  and  cannot  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  infinitely  higher  motives  exert 
as  great  power  over  mind  as  he  can  ?" . . .  .  "  From 
these  remarks  it  is  easy  to  answer  the  question 
sometimes  put  by  individuals  who  seem  to  be  en- 
tirely in  the  dark  on  this  subject,  whether  in  con- 
verting the  soul  the  Spirit  acts  directly  on  the 
mind,  or  on  the  truth.  This  is  the  same  nonsense 
as  if  you  should  ask  whether  an  earthly  advocate 
who  had  gained  his  cause,  did  it  by  acting  directly 
and  physically  on   the  juiy  or  on  his  argument." 

"  The  power   which   God   exerts  in  the 

conversion  of  a  soul  is  moral  power  ;  it  is  that 
kind  of  power  by  which  a  statesman  sways  the 
mind  of  a  senate  ;  or  by  which  an  advocate  moves 
and  bows  the  heart  of  a  jury."  Sermons  on  Im- 
portant Subjects,  p.  21,  27,  23,  30. 


Views  of  Finney  and  Du field.  Ill 


As  to  what  regeneration  consists  in,  Mr.  Fin- 
ney observes,  "  A  change  of  heart,  then,  consists 
in  changing  the  controlling  preference  of  the  mind 
in  regard  to  the  end  of  pursuit.  The  selfish  heart 
is  a  preference  of  self-interest  to  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  interests  of  His  kingdom.  A  new  heart 
consists  in  a  preference  of  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  interests  of  His  kingdom  to  one's  own  hap- 
piness."   "  It  is  a  change  in  the  choice  of 

a  Svpreme  Rulers  Ibid.  p.  9,  10.  In  describ- 
ing the  process  by  which  the  sinner  effects  this 
change,  he  occupies  nearly  a  whole  sermon,  which 
we  cannot  of  course,  with  propriety,  transfer  to 
these  pages.  It  corresponds  substantially  with 
the  views  already  given  from  Dr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  Duffield's  account  of  regeneration  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  It  is  going  altogether  beyond  the  analo- 
gy in  the  case,  to  assert  that  there  is  in  Regene- 
ration the  injection,  infusion,  or  implantation,  or 
creation  of  a  new  principle  of  sjnritual  life^  .... 
"  Whenever  the  Spirit  of  God  excites  and  secures 
in  the  mind  and  heart  of  man  those  acts  and  emo- 
tions which  are  appropriate  to  his  rational  soul, 
i.  e.  when  they  are  directed  to  God,  as  his  su- 
preme good  and  chief  end,  he  is  renewed,  regen- 
erated, born  again."  Work  on  Regeneration,  p. 
202,  203,  2u4.  But  how  does  the  Spirit  produce 
this  result  ?  According  to  him  it  is  done  by  mor« 
al  suasion.     He  has  two  whole  chapters,  occupy- 


178  Regeneration, 


ing  thirty-five  pages,  entitled  "  The  Moral  Suasion 
of  the  Spirit."  In  one  of  these  he  illustrates  his  views 
of  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency  by  the  power 
of  persuasion  exerted  by  one  man  over  another, 
and  the  greater  success  which  a  man  of  "  prac^ 
tical  knowledge  and  tact  and  particular  acquaint- 
ance with  dispositions,"  &c.  has  above  one  who  is 
less  skilful.  "  Shall  we  suppose,  (says  he.)  that 
God  cannot  do  with  sinners  in  reference  to  him- 
self what  one  man  has  done  with  another  ?  That 
a  physical  efficiency  is  necessary  to  make  the  sin- 
ner willing  to  confide  in  Ilim  and  repent  of  his 
rebellion  ?  To  suppose  this,  is  in  fact  to  attrib- 
ute a  moral  influence  to  man  more  potent  than 
that  which,  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be  requisite 
God  should  exert  !  It  would  in  effect  be  to  say 
that  man  can  subdue  his  foe  and  by  an  appropri- 
ate moral  influence  convert  him  into  a  friend  ;  but 
that  God  cannot  convert  His  enemy,  and  bring 
him  to  believe,  except  He  puts  forth  His  physical 
power  and  literally  creates  him  over  again." — 
P.  492,  493.* 


*  This  power  of  moral  suasion  is  tlie  kind  of  influence  refer, 
red  to  b)'a  certain  preacher  who  said,  "  If  I  were  as  eloquent  as 
the  Holy  Ghost  I  could  convert  sinners  as  well  as  He."  In  the 
National  Preacher  for  Feb.  1832,  a  sermon  furnished  by  Dr. 
Griffin  commences  by  quoting  the  above  remark.  It  being  at- 
tributed by  some  to  a  Presbyterian  minister  of  my  acquaintance, 
I  asked  him  whether  he  had  ever  used  this  expression.    He  re. 


Views  of  Mr.  Gilhert  179 

Daring  the  progress  of  the  discussion  concern- 
ing the  New  Theology,  it  was  alleged  by  some 
by  way  of  objection  to  the  new  theory,  that  it  in- 
volved the  principle  that  regeneration  is  not  an 
instantaneous  but  a  gradual  work.  This  allega- 
tion so  far  as  I  recollect,  was  for  a  time  neither 
admitted  nor  denied.  But  recently  the  doctrine 
o^ gradual  regeneration  has  been  avowed.  Mr, 
Gilbert,!  of  Wilmington,  Del.  published  in  the 
Pliiladelphian  in  1833,  a  number  of  communica- 
tions on  this  subject ;  which  were  afterwards  re- 
vised  and  enlarged,  and  in  1836,  at  the  "  earnest 
request"  of  the  "  members  of  the  Ministers'  Meet- 
ing of  New  Castle  County,  Del."  were  published 
in  a  pamphlet  form,  under  the  title  of "  Moral 
Suasion ;  or  Regeneration  not  a  Miracle,"  &c. 
It  is  dedicated  to  the  members  of  the  Ministers' 
Meeting,  and  to  the  Elders  of  the  churches  under 
their  pastoral  charge.  These  facts  appear  to 
show  that  Mr.  Gilbert's  views  accord  with  the 
sentiments  of  the  other  ministers  with  whom  he 
is  associated  in  that  state,  and  that  they  desire  to 
have  them  prevail  throughout  their  churches. 


plied  that  he  had,  and  vindicated  its  correctness  ;  though  he 
said  it  did  not  appear  in  the  connexion  in  which  he  used  it,  as 
it  does  when  standing  by  itself. 

t  In  the  organization  of  the  New  School  General  Assembly 
in  May  last,  Mr.  Gilbert  v/as  chosen  permanent  clerk. 


180  Regeneratiorik 


Mr.  Gilbert  affirms  that  "  the  bible  knows  no 
instantaneous  regeneration ;  this  is  a  refinement 
of  theological  philosophers.  Being  born  again, 
and  changing  the  heaft  of  stone  to  a  heart  of  flesh, 
is  a  gradual  j^rocess ;  although  under  some  cir- 
cumstances it  may  be  a  very  sJioi^t  one."  The  re- 
mark of  Dr.  Griffin,  that  "motives  can  never 
change  an  unholy  te?nper"  &lc.  he  calls  "  strange 
philosophy ;  flying  not  only  in  the  face  of  scripture, 
but  of  every  day  matters  of  fact."  "  Hov\^  often, 
(says  he,)  do  we  see  enmity  to  a  neighbor,  correct- 
ed, moderated,  subdued  and  turned  to  love,  by 
proper  motives  presented  to  the  mind  ?  And  en- 
mity to  God  is  restrained  and  subdued  in  the 
same  manner."  These  motives,  he  maintains,  are 
presented  in  the  latter  case  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  convicts,  converts,  and  sanctifies,  "  by  the 
influence  of  truth  presented  to  the  mind  and  in  no 
other  way."  In  one  place,  he  says  :  "  Regenera- 
tion cannot  he  wrought  without  the  truth.  It  is  in 
view  of  the  truth,  through  the  truth,  and  by  the 
truth,  the  soul  is  convicted,  converted  and  sanctifi- 
ed from  beginning  to  end." 

To  illustrate  his  views  he  has  furnished  a  dia- 
gram consisting  of  an  arc  of  a  circle,  in  the  cen- 
tre of  which  he  has  placed  the  Holy  Spirit.  From 
this  centre  are  drawn  sti'aight  lines  to  various 
points  in  the  arc,  representing  truth  as  employed 
by  the  Spirit.     A  sinner  pursuing  his  way  to  hell 


Mr.  Gilherfs  Views,  181- 

is  represented  as  being  met  by  one  of  these  lines, 
through  the  influence  of  which  he  is  persuaded  to 
diverge  a  Httle  from  the  path  he  was  pursuing,  and 
proceeding  at  an  angle  of  about  45  degrees,  he  pass- 
es gradually  through  the  several  steps  of  convic- 
tion, regeneration  and  sanctification,  describing  in 
his  progress  the  arc  of  the  circle  ;  until  arriving  at 
a  point  directly  opposite  from  where  he  started,  he 
becomes  perfect  and  ascends  to  heaven. 

That  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  this  new 
and  improved  method  of  regeneration  by  at- 
traction, we  will  give  the  diagram  with  the  au- 
thor's explanation.*  We  ought  to  remark,  how- 
ever, that  he  uses  the  terms  conviction  and  sanc- 
tification in  accommodation  to  the  views  and  lan- 
guage of  others.  According  to  his  own  views  the 
whole  process  from  beginning  to  end  belongs  to 
the  work  of  regeneration."  "  By  regeneration, 
says  he,  is  understood  the  divine  agency  in  the 
whole  process  of  a  sinner's  conviction  and  conver- 
sion ;  but  in  this  discussion  I  use  it  as  it  is  used 
by  Dr.  Griffin,  Mr.  Smith  and  others,  in  the  re- 
stricted sense  as  distinguished  from  previous  con- 
viction and  subsequent  sanctification."     "  It  [the 


*  As  a  matter  of  taste,  we  would  exclude  this  diagram  from 
«ur  pages — but  other  considerations  which  we  regard  as  para- 
mount, induce  us  to  insert  it. 

Q 


182  Regeneration'— New  Theology. 


bible]  knows  of  no  regeneration  as  distinct  from 
conviction  and  the  beginning  of  sanctification." 


E  ? 

Hell. 

The  Author's  Explanation. 
"  Let  the  semicircle,  A.  B.  C.  represent  the 
sinner's  course  from  sin  to  holiness.  Let  D.  E. 
represent  the  road  to  hell,  in  which  the  impeni- 
tent sinner  is  found  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  influ- 
enced at  the  point  A.  by  a  new  presentation  of 
truth,  to  stop  and  turn  gradually  from  his  down- 
ward course,  through  the  curve  of  conviction, 
towards  the  point  B.  where  his  conviction  becom- 
ing perfect  and  irresistible,  he  yields  and  turns 
from  his  downward  course,  through  the  process 
of  sanctification,  until  at  C.  (or  at  death,)  becom- 
ing perfect,  he  flies  off,  if  you  please,  in  a  tangent, 


Views  of  Mr.  Gilbert.  183 

to  heaven.  Till  he  reaches  the  point  B.  though 
turning  gradually  from  the  more  direct  road  to 
hell,  he  is  still  in  the  downward  course,  and 
should  the  Spirit  let  go  of  him,  at  any  point,  he 
liies  off,  by  his  own  centrifugal  force,  in  a  moment 
towards  perdition.  The  point  B.  represents  what 
these  writers  call  '  Regeneration.^  " 

''  The  Holy  Spirit,  hke  the  sun  in  the  centre,  is 
the  source  of  all  right  motion  ;  and  the  power  by 
which  he  attracts  or  influences  the  sinner,  is  the 
power  of  truth,  or  moral  motive  ;  by  which  the 
moral  agent  is  checked  at  A.  and  moved  and  con- 
trolled through  the  whole  course  from  A.  to  C. 
It  is  understood,  of  course,  that  the  whole  process 
may  be  longer  or  shorter,  according  to  circum- 
stances ;  may  begin  and  be  perfected,  as  with  the 
thief  on  the  cross,  in  a  single  day ;  or  as  in  the 
case  of  Methuselah,  may  occupy  900  or  1000 
years.  Conviction,  also,  may  be  short,  and  sanc- 
tification  long,  or  the  reverse.  But  conviction 
must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  precede  regen- 
eration, or  regeneration  cannot  be  a  rational 
change.  A  physical  change  may  take  place  with- 
out conviction ;  but  physical  regeneration  is  a 
thing  which  I  cannot  comprehend,  any  more  than 
physical  conviction  or  physical  sanctification. 
The  doctrine  of  tl>e  moral  suasionists  is,  that  the 
influence  ivhich  convicts,  also  regenerates  and 
sanctifies.     That  the  same  power  which  moves 


184         Regeneration — New  Theology. 

the  sinner  from  A.  to  B.  moves  him  through  the 
point  B.  and  along  the  line  to  C.  And  that  the 
whole  change  is  wrought  through  appropriate 
means,  without  a  miracle,  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Agreeably  to  these  ideas  of  gradual  progress 
from  the  first  point  to  the  last,  he  says  :  "  There 
is  very  little  distinction  between  the  last  degree 
of  sin  and  the  lowest  degree  of  holiness  ;  between 
the  last  exercise  of  an  unconverted  and  the  first 
of  a  converted  man ;  between  the  last  feeble 
struggle  of  selfishness  and  the  first  feeble  exercise 
of  love."  .  .  .  .  "  There  is  a  great  difference  be- 
tween supreme  selfishness  and  supreme  love  in 
their  extremes ;  but  between  the  last  feeble  influ- 
ence of  selfishness  and  the  first  feeble  exercise  of 
love  to  God,  the  diflference  is  as  imperceptible,  as 
between  the  adjacent  sides  of  the  Equatorial  line." 
.  .  .  .  "  The  point  B.  on  the  diagram  represents 
the  transition  line.  And  it  may  be  asked,  is  it 
not  an  important  one  ?  I  answer,  yes.  Impor- 
tant on  many  accounts,  but  not  because  of  any 
special  influence  used  then,  but  like  the  Equator, 
as  a  measure  of  relative  progress,  and  as  the  era 
of  a  great  change  in  all  our  moral  relations  and 
circumstances.  Like  the  Equatorial  line,  howev- 
er, it  is  in  itself  of  no  consequence  at  all." 

If  this  were  not  a  subject  too  serious  for  ridi- 
cule, Mr.  Gilbert  might  be  successfully  assailed 
by  this  weapon.    He  has  fairly  exposed  himself 


Vieivs  of  Mr,  Gilbert  185 

to  this  mode  of  attack.  But  if  I  possessed  a  talent 
for  the  humorous,  and  were  disposed  to  indulge 
in  it,  I  feel  too  much  shocked  at  his  method  of 
illustration  to  treat  it  with  ridicule.  He  appears 
to  have  felt  himself,  that  he  wpuld  run  "  the  risk 
of  being  counted  very  presumptuous  ;"  and  I 
doubt  not  he  was  correct  in  his  apprehensions. 
A  majority  of  his  readers,  it  seems  to  me,  (unless 
they  belong  to  a  particular  class)  will  feel  that  he 
has  "  'trodden  on  holy  ground,"  without  "  taking 
his  shoes  from  off  his  feet ;"  that  he  has  "  put 
forth  his  hand  and  touched  the  ark  of  God," 
without  "  sanctifying  himself ;"  or  in  other  words, 
that  he  has  so  presented  the  subject,  as  to  make 
him  appear  almost  profane. 

This  very  circumstance,  however,  serves  to 
show  the  fallacy  of  these  new  doctrines.  Mr. 
Gilbert  uses  no  irreverent  language— he  does  not 
caricature  the  New  Theology.  The  views  ex- 
.pressed  by  different  writers  as  quoted  in  the  pre- 
sent chapter,  if  carried  out  to  their  full  extent, 
and  illustrated  by  a  diagram,  could  not  perhaps 
be  exhibited  more  accurately  than  by  that  which 
has  been  presented.  But  a  description  given  in 
words,  which  have  often  an  equ'vocal  or  doubt- 
ful import,  produces  not  only  a  less  vivid,  but  a 
less  accurate  impression  than  that  which  is  made 
by  a  figure  faithfully  drawn  and  presented  to  the 
eye.     This  remark  is  true  not  only  in  reference 


186  Mr,  Gilberfs  Views. 

to  landscapes,  &c.  but  to  a  certain  extent  in  re- 
gard to  moral  and  religious  truth.  Mr.  Gilbert 
h£is  shewn  by  his  diagram,  that  it  is  capable  of 
being  employed  in  the  present  instance  ;  and  pos- 
sibly it  may  be  of  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  ; 
by  shewing  in  a  more  striking  manner  than  can 
be  exhibited  by  quoting  their  language,  the  dan- 
gerous extremes  to  which  those  men  are  tending. 
Give  not  only  words  but  visibility  to  their  doc- 
trines— let  them  be  seen  as  well  as  heard — and 
they  will  arouse  the  feelings  of  many  who  have 
not  before  been  seriously  alarmed. 


CHAP.  VIII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  &c.  continued  from  the  preceding 
chapter. 

We  observed  in  chapter  fifth  that  the  New 
Theology  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  and  hoh- 
ness,  viz.  that  they  consist  in  acts,  involves  a  new 
theory  of  regeneration.  What  this  theory  is  may 
be  learned  from  the  statements  made  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  It  is  the  following :  that  in  re- 
generation no  principle  of  holiness  is  implanted 
in  the  soul,  prior  to  the  exercise  of  holy  acts, 
from  which  principle,  or  "  moral  state  of  the  soul," 
those  acts  proceed ;  but  that  the  whole  change 
consists  in  the  acts  of  the  soul  itself;  which  from 
having  been  sinful  now  become  holy.  A  previ- 
ous holy  rehsh  or  taste,  which,  according  to  the 
old  doctrine,  is  essential  in  order  to  give  to  these 
acts  a  holy  character,  is  regarded  by  these  new 
system-makers,  as  unphilosophical  and  absurd; 
involving  what  they  term  physical  regeneration, 
passivity,  &c. 

If  by  physical  regeneration  is  meant  a  mechan- 
ical change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul,  it  forms 
no  part  of  the  Old  Theology — but  if  it  mean  a 
direct  agency  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  by 
which  its  faculties  are  so  renewed,  that  it  receives 


188  Regeneration — Old  Theology. 

the  principles  of  a  new  and  holy  life,  and  there- 
fore may  be  properly  said  to  possess  a  new  na- 
ture, it  is  what  I  understand  to  be  the  true  doc- 
trine. '•  The  scriptural  representations  of  con- 
version, (says  President  Edwards,)  strongly  imply 
and  signify  a  change  of  nature ;  such  as  being 
horn  again  ;  becoming  new  creatures ;  rising 
from  the  dead, ;  being  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  the 
mind ;  dying  to  sin,  and  living  to  righteousness  ; 
jmtting  off  the  old  man  and  putting  on  the  new 
man;  being  ingrafted  into  a  new  stock ;  having 
a  divine^  seed  implanted  in  the  heart ;  being  made 

partakers  of  the  Divine  nature,''   <^c "He^ 

[God]  gives  his  Spirit  to  be  united  to  the  facul- 
ties of  the  soul  and  to  dwell  there  as  a  principle 
of  spiritual  life  and  activity.  He  not  only  actu- 
ates the  soul,  but  he  abides  in  it.  The  mind  thus 
endued  with  grace  is  possessed  of  a  new  nature." 
Edwards  on  the  Affections,  vol.  5th. 

That  the  soul  is  passive  in  regeneration,  is  the 
doctrine  of  our  standards — and  it  necessarily  re^ 
suits  from  the  preceding  view  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  the  change.,  In  the  chapter  on  effectual 
calling,  both  are  presented  in  connexion  with 
each  other.  The  change  itself  is  declared  td  con- 
sist in  "enlightening  the  minds  [the  minds  of  those 
w^homHe  effectually  calls]  spiritually  and  savingly, 
to  understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away 
their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  Unto  them-  a  heart 


Doctrine  of  our  Standards.  18d 

of  flesh ;  renewing  their  wills,"  &c.  It  is  then 
added,  in  the  next  section,  "  This  effectual  call  is 
of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from 
any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man ;  who  is  alto- 
gether passive  therein,  until  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.  The  former 
part  of  this  quotation  exhibits  the  implantation  of 
a  holy  principle,  or  the  change  of  our  natures,  by 
conferring  spiritual  illumination,  [removing  the 
heart  of  stone  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh,  and  by 
renewing  the  will.  The  latter  affirms  that  this 
new  nature  w^as  not  imparted  to  us  by  our  own 
agency,  but  by  God  who  works  upon  us  by  his 
Holy  Spirit,  to  quicken  and  renew  us  ;  and  that 
we  must  of  course,  as  to  this  particular  point  in 
the  history  of  the  change,  be  the  passive  recipients 
of  Divine  grace — -not  bringing  it  about  by  our  own 
acts,  but  being  acted  upon  by  the  renovating 
power  of  God. 

This  doctrine,  however,  does  not  imply  that  we 
are  not  to  be  active  beforehand  in  the  diligent 
us6  of  the  means  of  grace — nor  that  we  are 
inactive  at  the  time,  with  respect  to  the  effects  of 
the  change.  Simultaneously  with  this  change 
and  as  the  immediate  consequence  of  it,  the  sin- 
ner is  "  persuaded  and  enabled  to  embrace  Jesus 
Christ,  as  he  is  freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel." 
In  this  he  is  not  passive,  but  active.  When  God 
"  by  his  almighty  power  determines  the  sinner  to 


190  Regeimration — Dr.  Cox. 

that  which  is  good,"  or  in  other  words,  gives  him 
an  apprehension  of  the  excellence  of  Divine  things, 
and  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ  as  his  Saviour, 
and  thus  "  effectually  draws"  him  to  Christ ;  he 
comes,  not  reluctantly,  but  "  most  freely,  being 
made  willing  by  his  grace."  Regeneration,  or  the 
implanting  of  a  holy  principle,  is  the  cause  ;  and 
our  conversion,  or  turning  to  God,  is  the  effect. 
In  the  former  we  are  passive,  in  the  latter  active. 
Though  in  the  order  of  time  they  are  simultaneous, 
in  the  order  of  nature  the  former  is  the  antece- 
dent, the  latter  the  consequent ;  just  as  breathing, 
though  simultaneous  with  the  existence  of  life,  is 
nevertheless  the  effect  of  it,  and  w^ould  never  oc- 
cur, unless  life  had  been  previously  communicated. 
Dr.  Cox,  who  does  not  appear  to  have  adopted 
all  the  principles  of  the  New  Theology,  has  ex- 
pressed himself  on  the  subject  of  regeneration  in 
a  manner  very  different  from  what  has  been  cus- 
tomary among  Calvinistic  waiters.  To  the  doc- 
trine that  "  God  creates  or  inserts  some  holy  prin- 
ciple in  us,  which  constitutes  regeneration,  and  in 
which  we  are  ei^tirely  passive  ;  but  that  thereafter 
we  actively  do  our  duty  ;  he  strongly  objects,  and 
says,  "it  can  command  the  confidence  of  no  well 
disciplined  mind."  He  adds,  it  is  true,  "  till  we 
have  both  a  definition  of  what  is  meant  by  holy 
principle  and  a  demonstration  of  its  existence,** 
<fec. ;  and  he  wishes  to  have  it  understood  that  he 


Biblical  Repertory.  191 

does  not  object  to  its  use,  if  explained  in  a  partic- 
ular way — -but  the  doctrine,  as  it  has  been  com- 
monly received,  be  does  not  embrace.  In  his 
letter  to  the  conductors  of  the  Biblical  Repertory, 
in  reply  to  their  review  of  his  sermon,  he  asks, 
"  Is  not  a  christian  active  in  all  his  moral  rela- 
tions ?  In  believing  and  obeying  God  ?  Certainly 
active  in  the  total  progress  of  religion,  in  the  soul 
and  life  :  then  why  not  also  in  its  rise  1  If  active 
progressively,  then  why  not  initially  too  ?  If  ac- 
tive in  the  work  of  sanctification,  v/hy  not  in  the 
whole  of  i.t,  in  its  commencement  as  well  as  its 
continuance  ;  in  regeneration  as  w^ell  as  sanctifi- 
cation ?  How  is  a  man  regenerated,  hut  as  he 
believes  and  obeys  the  gospel  ?  Is  he  regenerated 
before  he  does  this  ?  Is  he  more  dependant  in 
regeneration  one  whit  than  in  sanctification?" 
What  he  terms  the  passivity  doctrine,  or  the  doc- 
trine of  passive  regeneration,  he  explicitly  and 
frequently  disavows. 

The  remarks  of  the  editors  of  the  Repertory, 
in  their  review  of  his  sermon,  are  so  much  in 
point,  that  we  shall  transcribe  a  paragraph  of 
cohsiderable  length,  in  the  place  of  any  farther 
observations  of  ours  upon  this  subject. 

"  As  to  the  point  w4iich  Dr.  Cox  thinks  so  '  in- 
trinsically absurd,'  and  about  w^hich  he  says  so 
much,  whether  man  is  passive  in  regeneration,  it 
will  be  seen  that,  for  its  own  .sake,  it  does  not 


192      Regeneration — Biblical  Repertory, 

merit  a  moment's  discussion.  It  depends  entirely 
on  the  previous  question.  If  regeneration  be  that 
act  of  the  soul  by  which  it  chooses  God  for  its 
portion,  there  is  an  end  of  all  debate  on  the  sub- 
ject. For  no  one  will  maintain  that  the  soul  is 
passive  in  acting.  But  if  there  be  any  change  in 
the  moral  state  of  the  soul,  prior  to  its  turning  un- 
to God,  then  it  is  proper  to  say,  that  the  spul  is 
passive  as  to  that  particular  point ;  that  is,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  the  soul  the 
subject  of  the  change.  For  all  that  is  meant  by 
the  soul's  being  passive,  is,  that  it  is  not  the  agent 
of  the  change  in  question.  Its  immediate  and  de- 
lightful turning  unto  God  is  its  own  act ;  the  state 
of  mind  which  leads  to  this  act  is  produced  direct- 
ly by  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  whole  question  is, 
whether  any  such  anterior  change  is  necessary. 
Whether  a  soul  polluted  and  degraded  by  sin,  or 
in  Scripture  language,  carnal,  needs  any  change 
in  its  moral  taste  before  it  can  behold  the  loveli- 
ness of  the  Divine  character.  For  that  this  view 
must  precede  the  exercise  of  affection,  we  pre- 
sume will  not  be  denied.  If  this  point  be  decided, 
the  propriety  of  using  the  word  passive  to  denote 
that  the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the  agent  of 
the  change  in  question,  need  not  give  us  much 
trouble.  Sure  it  is  that  this  change  is  in  Scrip- 
ture always  referred  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the 
soul  that  repents,  believes,  hopes  and  fears ;  but  it 


Biblical  Repertory.  193 

is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  regenerates.  He  is  the 
author  of  our  faith  and  repentance  by  inducing  us 
to  act,  but  no  man  regenerates  himself.  The  soul, 
although  essentially  active,  is  still  capable  of  be- 
ing acted  upon.  It  receives  impressions  from 
sensible  objects,  from  other  spirits  and  from  the 
Holy  Ghost.  In  every  sensation,  there  is  an  im- 
pression made  by  some  external  object,  and  the 
immediate  knowledge  which  the  mind  takes  of 
the  impression.  As  to  the  first  point,  it  is  passive, 
or  the  subject ;  as  to  the  second,  it  is  active,  or 
the  agent.  These  two  are  indeed  inseparably 
connected,  and  so  are  regeneration  and  conver- 
sion  And  if  the  Holy  Spirit  does  make  such 

an  impression  on  the  mind,  or  exert  such  an  influ- 
ence as  induces  it  immediately  to  turn  to  God, 
then  it  is  correct  to  say  that  it  is  passive  in  regen- 
eration, though  active  in  conversion.  However, 
this  is  a  very  subordinate  point ;  the  main  ques- 
tion is,  whether  there  is  not  a  holy  '  relish,'  taste, 
or  principle  produced  in  the  soul  prior,  in  the  or- 
der of  nature,  to  any  holy  act  of  the  soul  itself. 
If  Dr.  Cox  can  show  this  to  be  *  intrinsically  ab- 
surd,' we  shall  give  up  the  question  of '  passivity' 
without  a  moment's  demur.  To  relinquish  the 
other  point,  however,  will  cost  us  a  painful  strug- 
gle. It  will  be  giving  up  the  main  point  in  de- 
bate between  the  friends  and  opposers  of  the  doc- 
trines of  grace  from  Augustine  to  the  present  day. 

R 


194  Regeneration  instantaneous. 

It  will  be  the  renunciation  of  what  Calvinists,  old 
and  new,  have  believed  to  be  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  original  righteousness,  original  sin  and 
efficacious  grace.  It  will  be  the  rejection  of  that 
whole  system  of  mingled  sovereignty  and  love 
w^hich  has  been  the  foundation,  for  ages,  of  so 
many  hopes,  and  of  so  much  blessedness  to  the 
people  of  God." 

We  mentioned  m  the  last  chapter  that  the  New 
Theology  involves  the  doctrine  of  gradual  regen- 
eration ;  and  we  quoted  from  Mr.  Gilbert's  pamph- 
let to  shew  that  this  sentiment  is  now  avowed 
by  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  new^  system.  On 
this  point  Dr.  Griffin  remarks,  "  The  evidence  of 
the  change  may  be  earlier  or  later  in  its  appear- 
ance, and  more  or  less  rapid  in  its  developements, 
but  the  change  itself  is  always  instantaneous.  Is 
not  such  an  idea  more  than  implied  in  the  text  ? 
[Ezek.  xi.  19.]  What  is  the  blessing  promised  ? 
Not  the  gradual  improvement  of  an  old  temper, 
but  "  a  new  spirit ;" — "  the  stony  heart"  not  soft- 
ened by  degrees  into  flesh,  but  by  one  decisive  ef- 
fort removed  and  a  heart  of  flesh  substituted  in 
its  room."  .  .  .  .  "  This  doctrine  however  does  not 
militate  against  the  idea  of  an  antecedent  prepara- 
tion in  the  conscience,  wrought  by  the  means  of 
grace  and  the  enlightening  influences  of  the 
Spirit."    Park  Street  Lectures,  p.  91,  101. 


The  Spirifs  Agency  direct  195 

These  means  according  to  our  standards  are 
"  the  word,  sacraments  and  prayer."  In  answer 
to  the  question,  how  is  the  word  made  effectual 
to  salvation  ?  the  following  answer  is  given  : 
"  The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading,  but  es- 
pecially the  preaching  of  the  word,  an  effectual 
means  of  enlightening,  convincing  and  humbling 
sinners,  of  driving  them  out  of  themselves,  and 
drawing  them  unto  Christ,"  &c.  Thus  the  law  is 
said  to  be  "  our  schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  Christ ;" 
"  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the 
soul ;"  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us,  by  the  word 
of  truth."  But  the  word,  let  it  be  remembered, 
is  only  the  means ;  which  the  Holy  Spirit  can 
employ  or  not  as  He  pleases ;  and  which  when  He 
does  employ  (as  is  usually  the  case)  do  not  be- 
come effectual  to  salvation,  till  He  by  a  direct  in- 
fluence upon  the  heart,  prepares  it  to  receive  and 
embrace  the  truth.  Lydia  did  not  attend  to  the 
things  spoken  by  Paul,  until  "  the  Lord  oj^ened  her 
hearty  In  order  that  David  might  behold  won- 
drous things  out  of  God's  law,  he  prayed  that 
God  would  "  open  his  eyes^  The  primitive  chris- 
tians had  access  by  faith  into  God's  grace,  and 
rejoiced  in  the  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  exercis- 
ing the  grace  of  patience  in  their  tribulations, 
"  because  the  love  of  God  was  shed  abroad  in  their 
hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto  them." 


196  The  Spirifs  Agency  direct. 

Though  all  these  texts  do  not  refer  to  regene- 
ration in  the  restricted  sense,  they  prove  the  doc- 
trine of  the  direct  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
heart — and  it  is  for  this  purpose  we  have  refer- 
red to  them.  If  the  Spirit  exerts  an  immediate 
influence  upon  the  hearts  of  believers,  in  order  to 
make  the  word  eflfectual  to  their  sanctification  ; 
much  more  on  the  hearts  of  sinners  to  make  it  ef- 
fectual to  their  conversion.  In  the  mind  of  the 
believer  there  is  something  congenial  with  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel ;  something,  therefore,  for  Di- 
vine truth  to  act  upon  in  the  form  of  motives : 
but,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Griffin,  "  motives 
can  never  change  an  unholy  temper ;  there  is  no 
tendency  in  truth  to  change  a  depraved  '  taste.'' 
The  change  must  take  place  before  light  can  act." 

This  doctrine  of  the  direct  agency  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  implantation  of  a  principle  of  holiness  in 
the  heart,  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  sen- 
timent that  the  change  is  instantaneous.  Motives 
operate  gradually  upon  the  mind ;  but  the  com- 
munication to  the  soul  of  a  new  spiritual  taste,  is 
the  work  of  a  moment.  We  either  possess  this 
holy  temper  or  we  do  not ;  there  is  no  point  of 
time  when  we  have  neither  enmity  nor  love  ;  or 
when  our  affections  are  suspended  in  equilibrio 
between  the  two.  Our  souls  are  necessarily  ei- 
ther in  one  state  or  its  opposite  ;  and  our  transi- 
tion, therefore,  from  one  to  the  other  must  be  ia- 


Depravity — Doctrine  of  our  Standards,  197 

stantaneous  ;  as  when  God  said  "  Let  there  be 
light,  and  there  was  light." 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  thought  by  some  that  the 
difference  between  instantaneous  and  gradual  re- 
generation is  not  important,  since  both  recognize 
the  necessity  of  becoming  holy.  But  a  httle  re- 
flection will  shew  the  contrary.  Gradual  regen- 
eration is  founded  on  the  principle  that  there  is 
something  good  in  the  unregenerate  man,  which 
needs  only  to  be  fostered  and  cherished,  in  order 
to  make  him  holy.  Of  course  it  involves  a  deni- 
al of  total  depravity  ;  and  the  necessity  of  an  en- 
tire radical  change  of  character.  It  fosters  pride 
and  self-righteousness ;  and  produces  hostility  to 
those  doctrines  of  grace  which  distinguish  the  gos- 
pel from  the  religion  of  nature.  It  is,  in  short, 
taking  a  step  towards  infidelity. 

In  regard  to  human  ability,  our  Confession  of 
Faith  uses  the  following  language  :  "  Man,  by  his 
fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability 
of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salva- 
tion ;  so  as  a  natural  man  being  altogether  averse 
from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not 
able,  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself,  or 
prepare  himself  thereunto."  Some  have  endeav- 
ored to  prove  from  this  passage  that,  according 
to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  depravity  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  will.  But  this  it  appears  to  me  is 
not  a  correct  exposition.     As  the  design  of  the 


198   Depravity — Doctrine  of  our  Standards. 

chapter  was  to  treat  "  Of  Free  Will,"  it  would  of 
course  state  explicitly  what  effect  the  fall  had  up- 
on the  will,  without  speaking,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  concerning  the  other  powers  of  the  souL 
There  is,  however,  a  clause  introduced,  which 
was  evidently  designed  to  refer  to  the  whole  mor- 
al man  :  " Dead  in  sin"  The  preceding  clause, 
viz.,  "  so  as  a  natural  man  being  altogether  averse 
from  that  which  is  good,"  refers  to  the  will ;  but 
to  this,  the  other  is  superadded — "  and  dead  in 
sin^^ — ^which  was  intended  to  convey  an  addition- 
al idea,  embracing,  perhaps,  the  former,  but  am- 
plifying and  extending  it,  so  as  to  include  the  de- 
pravity of  our  whole  nature.  This  will  appear 
by  a  reference  to  the  chapter  on  the  "  Fall  of 
Man ;"  where  it  reads  a&  follows :  "  By  this  sin 
they  [our  first  parents]  fell  from  their  original 
righteousness,  and  communion  with  God,  and  so 
became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the 
faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body."  It  will  al- 
so appear  by  a  reference  to  the  chapter  on  "  Ef- 
fectual Calling ;"  where,  in  describing  the  man- 
ner in  which  we  are  brought  "  out  of  that  state  of 
sin  and  death,"  it  is  not  only  said  that  our  wills 
are  renewed,  but  our  minds  spiritually  and  sav- 
ingly enlightened  to  understand  the  things  of  God  ; 
and  our  heart  of  stone  taken  away  and  a  heart  of 
flesh  given  unto  us.  If  depravity  belongs  to  the 
will  only,  that  alone  needs  to  be  operated  upon  in. 


Scyipture  Proofs.  19^ 

effectual  calling.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  our 
standards  teach  the  doctrine  not  only  that  the 
will  is  depraved,  but  likewise  all  the  faculties  of 
the  soul. 

This  view  also  accords  with  Scripture.  "  There 
is  none  that  under standeth"  Rom.  iii.  1 1 .  "Having 
the  understanding  darkened,  being  alienated  from 
the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in 
them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their  heart." 
Eph.  iv.  18.  "  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are  fool- 
ishness unto  him  ;  neither  can  he  know  thern,  be- 
cause they  are  spiritually  discerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14, 
Here  it  is  manifest  that  our  depravity  affects  the 
understanding.  Hence  in  conversion  it  is  neces- 
sary that  we  be  enlightened  to  discern  spiritual 
things.  "  The  eyes  of  your  understanding  being 
enlightened."  Eph.  i.  18.  "For  God  who  com- 
manded the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath 
shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  know*- 
ledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "  And  have  put  on  the 
new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after 
the  image  of  him  that  created  him."    Col.  iii.  10. 

Depravity  is  also  predicated  of  the  heart  and 
conscience.  "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked."  Jer.  xvii.  9. 
"  But  unto  them  that  are  dehled  and  unbelieving, 
is  i^othing  pure ;  but  even  their  mind  and  con- 


200  Depravity — Scripture  Proofs, 

science  is  defiled."  Tit.  i.  15.  Do  these  texts  re- 
fer exclusively  to  the  will ;  or  do  they  not  include 
also  the  other  moral  powers?  As  the  heart  is  the 
seat  of  the  affections,  to  say  that  the  heart  is  wick- 
ed, is  equivalent  to  declaring  the  affections  to  be 
depraved  and  alienated  from  God.  Accordingly, 
to  change  the  heart  is  to  give  us  a  holy  temper — 
to  renew  our  affections.  "  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy 
seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  Deut.  xxx.  6. 
"  And  I  w^ill  put  a  new  spirit  within  you,  and  I 
will  take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh  and 
will  give  them  a  heart  of  flesh."  Ezek.  xi.  19. 
When  this  is  done,  our  conscience  will  likewise  be 
rectified.  "  Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an 
evil  conscience."  Heb.  x.  22.  Then  too  the  will 
which  is  controlled  by  the  state  of  the  heart,  is 
sweetly  inclined  by  the  same  Spirit,  to  choose  and 
rest  upon  Christ,  as  the  portion  of  the  soul.  "  My 
people  shall  be  willing'  in  the  day  of  thy  power." 
Psa.  ex.  3. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  appears  that  the 
fall  has  affected  the  whole  moral  man.  What 
God  says  of  Judah  is  applicable  to  all  mankind. 
"  The  whole  head  is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart 
faint.  From  the  sole  of  the  foot  even  unto  the 
head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it."  Isa.  i.  5,  6. 
This  doctrine,  we  admit,  is  very  humiliating,  and 
calculated  to  make  the  sinner  feel  his  dependence 


Remarhs  of  Dr.  Witherspoon.  201 

upon  God.  But  this,  instead  of  being  an  objec- 
tion, is  a  proof  of  its  correctness.  While  it  must 
not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  annihilate  or  even  im- 
pair the  sinner's  obligation,  or  form  any  excuse 
for  his  impenitence  and  unbelief,  it  is  a  doctrine 
which  is  pre-eminently  adapted  to  drive  him  from 
those  refuges  of  self-righteousness  and  self-suffi- 
ciency, which  prove  the  ruin  of  so  many  souls, 
and  lead  him  to  seek  salvation  only  through  the 
grace  and  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  in- 
deed the  very  point  to  which  sinners  always  come 
before  they  embrace  the  Saviour. 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Witherspoon  uses  tlie  fol- 
lowing language  :  "  On  a  conviction  of  our  own 
inability,  one  would  think  we  should  but  the  more 
humbly  and  the  more  earnestly  apply  to  Him,  who 
is  all-sufficient  in  power  and  grace.  The  deplo- 
rable and  naturally  helpless  state  of  sinners,  doth 
not  hinder  exhortations  to  them  in  scripture  ;  and 
therefore  takes  not  away  their  obligation  to  duty. 
See  an  address,  where  the  strongest  metaphors 
are  retained,  the  exhortation  given  in  these  very 
terms,  and  the  foundation  of  the  duty  plainly 
pointed  out :  *  Wherefore  he  saith,  awake  thou 
that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ 
shall  give  thee  light.'  From  which  it  is  very 
plain,  that  the  moral  inability,  under  which  sinners 
now  lie,  as  a  consequence  of  the  fall,  is  not  of 
guch  a  nature  as  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  the 


202     Dependence — Views  of  Witlierspoon. 

propriety  of  exhortation  to  duty,  or  the  necessity 
of  endeavours  after  recovery."  .  ..."  I  make  no 
scruple  to  acknov^ledge,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
me  ;  nay,  I  find  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  it 
is  impossible  for  any  finite  mind  to  point  out  the 
bounds  betw^een  the  '  dependence'  and  '  activity' 
of  the  creature."  .  .  .  .  "  The  new  birth  is  a  '  su- 
pernatural change ;'  it  is  the  effect  of  the  power 
of  God  ;  it  is  the  w^ork  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  have 
been  at  the  more  pains  to  establish  this  truth,  be- 
cause 1  am  persuaded,  that  until  it  be  truly  re- 
ceived, there  may  be  a  form,  but  there  can  be 

nothing  of  the  power  of  godliness." "  But 

what  shall  we  say  ?  Alas  !  the  very  subject  we 
are  now^  speaking  of,  aflfords  a  new  proof  of  the 
blindness,  prejudice  and  obstinacy  of  sinners. 
They  are  self  condemned  ;  for  they  do  not  act 
the  same  part  in  similar  cases.  The  affairs  of  the 
present  life  are  not  managed  in  so  preposterous  a 
manner.  He  that  ploughs  his  ground,  and  throws 
in  his  seed,  cannot  so  much  as  unite  one  grain  to 
the  clod ;  nay  he  is  not  able  to  conceive  how  it 
is  done.  He  cannot  carry  on,  nay,  he  cannot  so 
much  as  begin  one  single  step  of  this  wonderful 
process  toward  the  subsequent  crop  ;  the  mortifi- 
cation of  the  seed,  the  resurrection  of  the  blade, 
and  gradual  increase,  till  it  come  to  perfect  ma- 
turity. Is  it,  therefore,  reasonable  that  he  should 
say, '  I  for  my  part  can  do  nothing ;  it  is,  first  and 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Witkerspoon.  :203 

last,  an  effect  of  Divine  power  and  energy  :  and 
God  can  as  easily  raise  a  crop  without  sowing  as 
with  it,  in  a  single  instant,  and  in  any  place,  as  in 
a  long  time  by  the  mutual  influence  of  soil  and 
season ;  I  will  therefore  spare  myself  the  hard- 
ship of  toil  and  labor,  and  wait  with  patience  till 
I  see  what  he  will  be  pleased  to  send  V  Would  not 
this  be  madness  ?  Would  it  not  be  universally  re- 
puted so  ?  And  would  it  not  be  equal  madness 
to  turn  the  grace  of  God  into  hcentiousness  ? 
Believe  it,  the  warning  is  equally  reasonable  and 
equally  necessary,  in  spiritual  as  in  temporal 
things.  *  Be  not  deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,  for 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap : 
for  he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh,  shall  of  the  flesh 
reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  soweth  to  the  Spirit, 
shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting.'  "  Practi- 
cal Treatise  on  Regeneration,  sect.  4. 

But  while  the  doctrine  of  .human  inability  and 
dependence  upon  God,  as  understood  and  believed 
by  the  friends  of  the  Old  Theology,  does  not  de- 
stroy accountableness,  nor  impair  obligation,  nor 
discourage  effort ;  but  brings  the  sinner  to  his 
proper  place,  before  the  throne  of  Divine  mercy  ; 
we  think  the  doctrine  of  abiliti/,  as  maintained  by 
the  advocates  of  the  New  Theology,  is  calculated 
to  produce  such  independence  of  feeling,  with  re- 
gard to  the  Spirit's  influences,  as  to  be  a  serious 
obstacle  to  genuine  conversion.     Among  the  "  false 


204        Dependence — New  School  Views, 

comforts  for  sinners,"  which  Mr.  Finney  enume- 
rates, one  is,  "telling  the  sinner  to  pray  for  anew 
heart"  He  asks,  "  Does  God  say  Pray  for  a  new 
heart  ?"  Never.  He  says,  "  Make  you  a  new 
heart.''  And  the  sinner  is  not  to  be  told  to  pray 
to  God  to  do  his  duty  for  him,  but  to  go  and  do  it 
himself."  Lectures  on  Revivals,  p.  318.  Thus 
it  appears,  we  must  not  direct  sinners  to  seek  God 
for  renewing  grace,  because  they  have  sufficient 
ability  of  their  own  to  perform  the  work.  To 
preach  to  them  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ences while  exhorting  them  to  duty,  would  be  ac- 
cording to  him  '•  unphilosophicai."  We  must  tell 
them  "  to  go  and  do  it  themselves."  What  kind 
of  conversions  is  such  instruction  as  this  calcula- 
ted to  produce  ?*    It  is  no  wonder  that  the  revivals 


*  Let  the  reader  judge  of  the  probable  effect  upon  the  sinner 
of  preaching  such  doctrines  as  are  developed  in  the  following 
conversation,  between  a  licentiate,  a  student  from  New  Haven, 
and  two  highly  respectable  ministers,  in  1832.  It  was  taken 
down  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  ministers,  as  he  has  informed 
me,  "  the  paper  sealed  up  and  has  been  kept  since  a  secret." 
In  communicating  it  to  me  a  few  weeks  ago,  he  observes,  "  If 
you  judge  it  to  be  proper,  you  are  now  at  liberty  to  use  the  docu- 
ment in  your  forth  couiing  book  ;  suppressing  the  names  for 
the  present,  but  considering  me  as  responsible  for  the  statement, 
and  ready  to  give  the  names  hereafter  if  necessary." 

"  Mr. ,  [one  of  the  ministers.]  in  the  course  of  general 

conversation,  alluded  to  New  Haven  as  a  school  of  Theology, 

and  asked  finally  that  Mr. ,  [the  licentiate,]  would  state 

what  were  the  peculiarities  of  P/'o/essor  Fitch's  scheme  of  natural 


Revivals — Mr,  Finney.  205 

of  religion  which  have  occurred  within  the  last  ten 
years,  under  the  ministry  of  such  men,  should  fur- 
nish so  many  examples  of  apostacy."  In  a  dis- 
course delivered  by  Mr.  Finney  in  Chatham-street 
chapel  in  1836,  are  found  such  sentences  as  the 
following  :f     "  You  profess  that  you  want  to  have 


t  We  quote  from  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review.  The 
sermon  it  appears  was  reported  in  the  New -York  Evangelist, 
Feb.  13,  1836. 


depravity.     M  r. avowed  himself  a  believer  in  that  scheme, 

and  stated  among  other  things,  in  substance"  as  follows  : 
("  many  of  the  following  views,  he  said  however,  were  his  otort, 
and  not  chargeable  upon  any  others,  or  any  particular  school :) 
that  *  moral  character  was  predicated  entirely  on  choice  beticeen 
good  and  evil :  that  man  was  not  regarded  with  displeasure  in 
the  sight  of  God,  either  by  imputation  of  original  sin,  or  as  having 
a  disposition  to  evil.  He  was  in  no  sense  a  sinner,  until  of  suf- 
ficient age  and  capacity  to  choose  for  himself;  and  t/ there  was 
a  period  in  his  existence  previous  to  that,  during  that  period  he 
was  an  innocent  being.'  " 

"  The  bearing  of  this  on,  the  doctrine  ox  regeneration  was  then 

.  suggested  ;  whereupon  Mr. stated  in  substance  '  that  he 

did  not  regard  the  saying  olF  Christ  to  Kicodemus,  '  that  which 
isboi'n  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit,'*  as  implying  any  thing  like  a  new  moral  nature,  opposite 
to  his  first  nature,  as  given  to  him  in  regeneration.  He  believed 
that  subject  had  been  misunderstood.  There  was  indeed  a  ne- 
cessity for  regeneration,  but  it  consisted  not  in  the  implantation 
ofliew  principles,  but  the  rational  turning  of  the  same  princi- 
pies  to  a  new  course,  ^s  to  the  xoay  in  xohich  it  was  produced, 
God's  help  was  indeed  necessary,  but  no  more  so  than  in  every 


206  Revivals — 3Ir.  Finney, 

sinners  converted.  But  what  avails  it  if  they  sink 
right  back  again  into  conformity  to  the  world  V 
"  Where  are  the  proper  results  of  the  glo- 
rious revivals  we  have  had  ?" "  The  great 

body  of  them  [the  converts  of  the  last  ten  years] 

are  a  disgrace  to  religion." "  Of  what  use 

is  it  to  convert  sinners  and  make  them  such  chris- 
tians as  these  ?"  This  is  an  acknowledgment  that 
the  fruits  of  those  revivals  are  not  such  as  were 
anticipated — and  so  long  as   converts  are  made 

other  action  of  man. .  He  presented  motives,  and  when  a  man 
sincerely  made  up  his  resolution  to  follow  them  and  did  decide 

to  do  so,  that  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  hfe.'     Mr. 

asked  him  if  any  sinner  ever  did  come  to  Christ  without /eeZmg 

his  helpless  and  lost  condilion  ?    Mr.  — ■ said  '  he  thought, 

yes  ;  and  mentioned  his  own  case.'  " 

"  The  bearing  of  the  subject  on  atonement  and  justification  was 

next  alluded  to  ;  and  Mi-. [the  licentiate]  observed  '  that  it 

was  a  scheme  which  did  indeed  run  through  the  whole.  As  to 
atonement  he  believed  in  it,  but  he  seemed  to  consider  it  as 
consisting  in  ivhat  lay  beiiceen  God  and  his  intelligent  universe  (x- 
clusively,  and  that  for  laying  a  ground  of  justifying  his  oion  pro- 
ceedings ;  as  such,  a  man  ought  to  trust  in  or  believe  the  atone- 
ment :  but  in  [the]  matter  of  personal  experience  we  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it:  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  in  no  sense 
imputed  to  us :  we  must  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  our  own 
obedience.' " 

"  Much  was  said  also  o?  the  practical  influence  of  such  a  style 

of  preaching  ;  and  it  was  objected  to  Mr. 's  scheme,  that 

taking  men  as  they  are,  they  would  be  likely  to  interpret  his 
views  of  their  own  powers  and  independency  as  even  more  fa- 
vorable to  themselves  than  he  probably  intended :  and  Mr. 

[one  of  the  ministers]  remarked  that  as  the  gospel  was  repre- 
sented *  to  be  a  seeking  and  saving  that  lohich  loas  lostj^  '  to  kill 


Remarks  of  Dr.  Reed,  207 

under  the  influence  of  such  doctrines,  and  that 
system  of  measures  which  corresponds  with  them, 
we  must  expect  similar  results.  Their "  good- 
ness will  be  as  the  morning  cloud,  and  as  the  ear- 
ly dew  it  will  pass  away." 

The  following  remarks  of  Dr.  Reed,  one  of  the 
delegates  from  England  to  the  American  church- 
es, accord  with  the  sentiments  and  observation  of 
very  many  in  America,  who  have  been  "  witness- 
es of  these  things."  "  The  New  Divinity  and  the 
New  Measures,  have  greatly  coalesced,  and  they 
have  given  for  the  time,  currency  to  each  other. 


and  make  aiive  ;'  he  had  always  felt  it  to  be  more  necessary  to 
show  men  their  helplessness  connected  with  their  guilt,  and  a 
way  of  hope,  than  to  persuade  them  of  their  own  powers.    Mr. 

[the  licentiate]  held  the  opposite  opinion.    He  seemed  to 

think  that  the  reason  why  many  more  were  not  pious,  was,  that 
too  many  and  unnecessary  difficulties  were  left  in  the  way.  They 
ought  to  be  reasoned  with  more :  show  them  that  this  work  is  not 
so  hard  and  unreasonable  :  they  could  be  persuaded  to  make  a 
choice  if  you  would  only  present  the  thing  as  rational;  and  many 
were  thus  won,  where  this  scheme  was  now  adopted.'  He  said 
much  of  the  figurative  language  of  scripture,  and  seemed  to 
think  that  such  passages  as  '  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God,'  did  not  apply  to  men  at  the  present  age  of  the  world,  but 
peculiarly  to  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  prejudices.  The  op- 
position which  we  have  often  witnessed  against  religion  in  nat- 
ural men  is  not  so  much  against  God  or  religion  itself,  as  against 
the  prejudiced  representations  of  it  by  mistaken  teachers.'" 

This  individual  who  is  denominated  by  my  correspondent "  a 
respectable  young  man,"  was  at  that  time,  as  I  infer  from  his 
letter,  seeking  a  settlement  in  a  Presbyterian  congregation. 


208  Remarks  of  Dr.  Reed. 

Many  pious  and  ardent  persons  and  preachers, 
from  the  causes  to  which  I  have  adverted,  were 
disposed  to  think  that  the  new  opinions  had  all 
the  advantage  in  a  revival,  and  this  gave  them  all 
the  preference  in  their  judgment.  Where  they 
in  connexion  with  the  New  Measures  have  been 
vigorously  applied,  there  has  indeed,  been  no 
want  of  excitement.  The  preacher  who  firmly 
believes  that  the  conversion  of  men  rests  on  the 
force  of  moral  suasion,  is  not  unlikely  to  be  per- 
suasive. And  the  hearer  who  is  told  "  he  can 
convert  himself,"  that  it  is  "  as  easy  for  him  to  do 
so  as  to  walk,"  that  he  has  only  "  to  resolve  to  do 
it  and  it  is  done,"  is  not  unlikely  to  be  moved  into 
self-complacent  exertion.  But  it  may  be  asked, 
does  either  the  preacher*  or  the  hearer  possess  those 
sentiments  which  are  likely  to  lead  to  a  true  con- 
version, and  to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance ?" 

"  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  There 
has  certainly  been  good  done  where  there  has 
been  much  evil,  for  with  this  evil  there  has  been 
a  large  portion  of  divine  truth.  But  1  fear  not  to 
say,  that  where  there  has  been  the  largest  infu- 
sion of  the  New  Divinity  into  the  New  Measures, 
there  has  been  the  greatest  amount  of  unwarrant- 
able extravagance.  There  has  been  great  ex- 
citement, much  animal  emotion  and  sympathy, 
high  resolves,  and  multiplied  conversions,  hut 
time  has  tested  them  and  they  havefailed^^* 


CHAP.  IX. 

A  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology,  by  way  of 
review,  and  a  notiqe  of  the  Perfectionism  of  Mr.  Finney. 

That  the  reader  may  see  at  a  single  view  the 
most  prominent  points  of  difference  between  the 
Old  and  New  Theology,  we  shall  exhibit  them  in 
few  words  by  way  of  contrast : — in  doing  which 
we  shall  take  a  kind  of  retrospect  of  the  volume, 
and  exemplify  some  of  the  principles  which  have 
been  noticed,  by  a  few  additional  quotations. 

1.  The  Old   Theology  places   God  upon  the 
throne  of  the  universe,  and  makes  Him  competent 
to  say  concerning  all  creatures  and  events,  "  My 
counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure." 
The  New  makes  Him  so  dependent  upon  the  voli- 
tions of  moral   agents,  that  He  is  liable  to  suffer 
disappointment  and  to  have  his  happiness  dimin- 
ished, by  the  uncontrollable  agency  of  men  : — and 
this  not  only  in  the  present  world,  but  in  the  next. 
Prof.   Fitch  affirms  that  God's  "  purpose  was  to 
confer  on  the  beings  composing  His  moral  king- 
dom, the  power  of  volition  and  choice,  and  to  use 
the  best  influence  God  could  use  on  the  whole  to 
secure  the  holiness  and  i^revent  the  sin  of  such  be- 
ings, who  themselves,  and  not  He,  were  to  have 
immediate  power  over   their   volitions,''^     Again  ; 


210  Contrast— The  Fall 

"  We  affirm  that  the  causes  in  kind  which  origin- 
ate sin,  being  inseparably  inherent  in  a  moral 
universe,  may  so  accumulate  in  degree  under 
every  system  of  Providence  and  government  which 
CAN  he  pursued,  as  to  render  sure  the  occurrence 
of  sin.  If  in  a  universe  of  such  beings,  no  possi- 
ble system  of  Providence  adopted  and  pursued 
THROUGH  ETERNITY  Can  shut  out  all  occasions  of 
the  ouibreakings  of  sin,  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  as  to 
His  preventing  it,  sin  is  unavoidably  incidental  to 
the  acts  of  the  Creator  in  creating  and  governing 

such   a  kingdom." "  The  causes   in  kind 

which  are  known  to  originate  sin  in  the  present 
universe,  must  necessarily  be  present  in  any  pos- 
sible universe  of  moral  beings."  . . .  [&]  ..."  If 
the  causes  of  defectibility  are  thus  inseparable 
from  the  existence  of  a  universe  of  moral  beings, 
is  there  not  aground  of  probability  that  they  will 
lead  to  actual  defection  in  every  possible  system 
as  well  as  in  this  V  Review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  Dis- 
course on  Predestination  and  Election,  and  a  De- 
fence of  that  Review  in  the  Christian  Spectator, 
What  low  and  unworthy  views  does  this  statement 
convey  concerning  the  Deity  !  What  dismal 
prospects  it  presents  to  the  expectant  of  future 
and  eternal  bliss  ! 

2.  The  Old  Theology  regards  the  fall  of  man 
as  a  catastrophe  so  direful  in  its  effects,  that  no 
power  less  than   Omnipotence  is    adequate  to 


Contrast — Covenant  with  Adam.        211 


"  quicken  sinners  who  are  dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins."  The  New,  treats  it  as  a  calamity,  which 
the  sinner  is  able,  since  the  introduction  of  a  sys- 
tem of  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  repair  him- 
self. Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Now  suppose  God  to 
have  come  out  upon  Adam  with  the  command  of 
the  text  '  Make  you  a  new  heart  for  why  will  ye 
die  V  Could  Adam  have  justly  answered,  dost 
Thou  think  that  I  can  change  my  own  heart  ? 
Can  I,  who  have  a  heart  totally  depraved,  can  I 
change  that  heart  ?  Might  not  the  Almighty  have 
answered  him  in  words  of  fire,  Rebel,  you  have 
just  changed  your  heart  from  holiness  to  sin,  now 
change  it  back  from  sin  to  holiness."  Sermons  on 
Important  Subjects,  p.  13.  See  also  Mr.  Barnes' 
remarks  on  the  text,  "  When  we  were  without 
strength  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly,"  in  Chap.  7th. 
We  shall  likewise  give  one  or  two  additional  quo- 
tations in  the  present  chapter,  under  the  head  of 
ability. 

3.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  Adam  was 
the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and  that,  by 
breaking  the  covenant  under  which  he  was  plac- 
ed, he  involved  not  only  himself,  but  all  his  pos- 
terity in  sin  and  misery — the  guilt  of  his  first  sin 
being  imputed  to  them,  or  set  over  in  law  to  their 
account ;  so  that  they  all  come  into  the  world 
with  depraved  and  sinful  natures.  The  New  de- 
nies that  we  sustain  a  covenant  relation  to  Adam ; 


212  Contrast — Imputation,  ^. 

and  maintains  that  he  was  only  our  natural  head 
and  father — from  whose  sin  it  results  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  according  to  the  common  laws  of  human 
society,  that  all  his  posterity  become  sinners  when 
they  arrive  at  moral,  agency  ;  before  which  time 
they  are  neither  sinful  nor  holy  ;  and  that  they 
become  sinners  by  their  own  voluntary  actj  after 
a  trial,  it  would  seem,  similar  to  what  Adam  had. 
Says  Dr.  Taylor,  in  reply  to  a  supposed  objection, 
"  Why  render  this  universal  sinfulness  of  a  race, 
the  consequence  of  one  man's  act  ?  why  not  give 
to  each  a  fair  trial  for  himself?"  "  I  answer,  God 
does  give  to  each  a  fair  trial  for  himself  Not  a 
human  being  does  or  can  become  thus  sinful  or  de- 
praved but  by  his  own  choice.  God  does  not 
compel  him  to  sin  by  the  nature  he  gives  him. 
Nor  is  his  sin,  although  a  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  in  such  a  sense  its  consequence  as  not  to  be 
a  free  voluntary  act  of  his  own.  He  sins  freely, 
voluntarily.  There  is  no  other  way  of  sinning, 
God  (there  is  no  irreverence  in  saying  it)  can 
make  nothing  else  sin,  but  the  sinner's  act."  Con- 
cio  ad  Clerum. 

Mr.  Barnes  observes  :  "  If  it  were  a  dogma  of 
a  pretended  revelation,  that  God  might  at  pleas- 
ure, and  by  an  arbitrary  decree,  make  crime  pass 
from  one  individual  to  another — striking  onward 
from  age  to  age,  and  reaching  downward  to  "  the 
last  season  of  recorded  time" — punished  in  the 


Testimony  of  Unitarians.  213 

original  offender ;  re-punished  in  his  children ; 
and  punished  again  and  again,  by  infinite  multi- 
ples, in  countless  ages  and  individuals  ;  and  all 
this  judicial  infliction,  for  a  single  act,  performed 
cycles  of  ages  before  the  individuals  lived,  we  see 
not  how  any  evidence  could  shake  our  intrinsic 

belief  that  this  is  unjust  and  improbable." 

"  We  never  can  adopt  that  system  which  tram- 
ples on  the  analogies  which  actually  exist,  and 
holds  men  to  be  personally  answerable^  and  actu- 
ally punished  by  a  just  God,  for  an  act  committed 
thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born.  Such 
a  doctrine  is  no  where  to  be  found  in  the  scrip- 
tures." Introductory  Essay  to  Butler's  Analogy, 
p.  35,  39. 

All  which  we  deem  it  necessary  to  say  con- 
cerning the  views  contained  in  these  extracts,  is, 
that  Unitarians  consider  them  "  sound  and  lucid" 
In  the  Review  of  Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans, in  the  Christian  Examiner,  already  referred 
to,  [a  Unitarian  Quarterly]  the  reviewer  says : 
"  On  the  subject  of  man's  nature,  capacities,  and 
duty,  our  author  is  sound  and  lucid.  The  idea  of 
hereditary  depravity  he  spurns,  as  unworthy  of 
even  a  passing  notice.  He  asserts  repeatedly 
that  men  sin  only  in  their  own  person,  in  them- 
selves, as  indeed  how  can  they  sin  in  any  other 
way?  The  imputation  of  Adam's  transgression 
he  treats  as  a  scholastic  absurdity,"  .  ..."  Of  the 


214  Contrast — The  Atonement 

figment  of  Adam's  federal  headship  and  the  con- 
demnation of  his  posterity  for  partnership  in  his 
sin,  Mr.  Barnes  says  *  there  is  not  one  word  of  it 
in  the  bible.'  "* 

4.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  the  atone- 
ment consisted  in  rendering  satisfaction  to  Divine 
justice  by  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ ;  who 
endured  in  our  stead  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and 
offered  up  himself  an  acceptable  sacrifice  to  God  : 
by  which  offering  God's  "  favor  was  propitiated 


*  The  views  of  Socinus  are  as  follows : 

Ctuest.  1.  "Is  it  in  our  power  fully  to  obey  the  command, 
ments  of  God  ?" 

Answ.  "  Certainly  ;  for  it  is  evident,  that  the  first  man  was 
so  formed  by  God,  that  he  was  endued  with  free  will ;  and  no 
reason  existed  why  he  should  be  deprived  of  this  power  after 
the  fall ;  nor  was  it  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God,  that  man 
should  be  deprived  of  free  will.  Accordingly,  in  the  punish, 
raent  inflicted  on  his  sin,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  such 
loss." 

Cluest.  2.  "  But  is  not  the  will  of  man  vitiated  by  original 
Bin  ?" 

Answ.  "  There  is  no  such  thing  as  original  ein  ;  the  scrip- 
ture teaches  no  such  doctrine  ;  and  the  will  of  man  could  not 
be  vitiated  by  a  cause  which  had  no  existence.  The  sin  of  Ad- 
am being  a  single  act  could  not  corrupt  his  own  nature,  much 
less  had  it  power  to  deprave  the  nature  of  all  his  posterity. 
That  this  sin  should  be  charged  on  them,  is,  as  has  been  said, 
a  doctrine  unknown  to  the  scriptures  ;  and  it  is  utterly  incredi. 
ble,  that  God,  who  is  the  fountain  of  equity,  should  be  willing  to 
impute  it  to  them."  Racovian  Catechism,  compiled  from  the 
writings  of  Socinus,  and  published  A.  D.  1606;  translated  for 
the  Biblical  Repertory  ;  q.  v. 


Contrast^-The  Atonement.  215 

for  us,"  his  law  magnified  and  his  government 
sustained :  so  that  without  doing  violence  to  his 
holy  nature,  or  relinquishing  the  claims  of  his  law, 
or  dishonoring  his  government,  he  secured  the 
salvation  of  those  who  were  given  to  Christ  in  the 
covenant  of  redemption  ;  [John  xvii.  2  ;  Isa.  liii. 
11,  12 ;]  and  laid  the  foundation  for  a  free  offer 
of  mercy  to  all  who  hear  the  gospel.  Mark  xvi. 
15.     John  iii.  16. 

The  New  Theology  considers  the  atonement 
as  involving  a  suspension  of  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
and  as  consisting  in  a  "  symbolical  display^'  to  the 
universe,  for  the  purpose  of  producing  such  an 
impression  of  God's  hatred  to  sin,  as  would  render 
it  safe  and  proper  for  him  as  moral  Governor,  to 
bestow  pardon  upon  sinners  :  and  as  to  sinners 
themselves,  it  is  an  " experiment"  made  by  God 
for  their  salvation  ;  which,  through  his  impotency 
to  control  moral  agents,  may  fail  of  its  intended 
result.*  Among  other  relations  of  the  atonement 
discussed  by  Mr.  Jenkyn,  he  considers  it  in  rela- 
tion to  the  2^u^yoses  and  providences  of  God.    Un- 


*  1  have  not  met  with  any  writer  who  expressed  himself  in 
this  revolting  form,  except  Mr.  Jenkyn  in  his  work  on  the 
Atonement.  But  this  is  a  correct  statement,  it  appears  to  me, 
of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  those  (if  they  are  consistent)  who  in 
connexion  with  the  New  School  view  of  atonement,  adopt  also 
the  new  theory  concerning  the  character  and  government  of  God. 


216  Contrast — The  Atonement, 

der  the  former  he  observes,  "  The  various  dispen- 
sations of  probation  are  various  experiments  in 
moral  government,  in  which  God  submits  his  own 
plans  and  ways  to  the  acceptance  and  for  the 
use  of  free  agents.  If  any  object  to  the  word 
*  experiment'  I  beg  to  refer  them  for  the  meaning 
of  it,  to  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig  tree,  and  to 
that  of  the  husbandman  sending  his  servants,  and 
afterwards  his  son  to  the  vineyard.  These  dis- 
pensations or  experiments  are  capable  ^^  failure. 
The  Eden  experi?nent  failed — and  the  Sinai  ex- 
periment failed.  Such  susceptibility  of  failure 
has  been  shewn  to  be  incidental  to  a  moral  gov- 
ernment and  a  state  of  trial."  Under  its  relation 
to  providence  he  says,  "  The  measures  of  provi- 
dence are  liable  io  failure,  A  medicine  may  fail, 
notwithstanding  the  virtue  which  providence  has 
given  it.  The  crop  of  the  husbandman  may  fail, 
notwithstanding  the  provision  that  seed  time  and 
harvest  time  shall  continue.  The  morbid  fear  of 
acknowledging  such  a  liableness  to  failure  in  the 
measures  of  jwovidencc  is  unaccountable,  when 
God  declares  his  own  government  of  the  Jews,  un- 
der the  theocracy,  to  have  failed  of  its  end,  '  In 
vain  have  I  smitten  them,  they  have  refused  to 
receive  correction.'  Jer.  ii.  30.  The  w^ord  of  God 
distinctly  and  expressly  recognizes  the  same  lia- 
bleness to  failure  in  the  great  measure  of  atone- 
ment.    Are  you  sure  that  it  is  not  attachment  to 


Contrast — Chris fs  Righteousness.       217 

system  rather  than  attachment  to  the  trutli  that 
makes  you  hesitate  to  avow  it?"  P.  97,  168. 
Quere.  If  God's  "  plan"  or  "  experiment,^^  or 
"  measure  of  atonement,^^  is  hable  to  failure  ;  and 
if  it  does  fail  in  numerous  instances,  as  Mr.  Jen- 
^  kyn  intimates,  and  elsewhere  admits,  what  security 
have  we  that  it  will  not  fail  altogether  ?  What  if 
it  should  happen,  that  when  "  submitted  to  the  ac- 
ceptance of  free  agents,'^  they  should  all  object  to 
it,  and  refuse  to  comply  with  its  conditions  !  Has 
God  power  to  control  the  exercise  of  their  free 
agency  and  persuade  them  to  change  their  minds  ? 
or  may  they  not,  in  despite  of  his  mightiest  influ- 
ence, persist  in  rejecting  Christ  ?  and  so  despoil 
him  of  his  Mediatorial  reward  ! 

5.  The  Old  Theology  arrays  the  believer  in  the 
robe  of  Christ's  righteousness ;  which  being  im- 
puted to  him  and  received  by  faith,  is  the  ground 
of  his  justification  before  God.  "  This  is  his  name 
whereby  he  shall  be  called.  The  Lord  our 
Righteousness."  Jer.  xxiii.  6.  "  And  be  found 
in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which 
is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith  of 
Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  by  faith."  Phil, 
iii.  9.  "  And  to  her  [the  Lamb's  wife,  the  church] 
was  granted,  that  she  should  be  arrayed  in  fine 
Hnen,  clean  and  white  :  for  the  fine  linen  is  the 
righteousness  of  saints."  Rev.  xix.  8,  "  You  have 
here,"  says  Henry,  "  a  description  of  the  bride, 

T 


218  Contrast — Justification. 

how  she  appeared  ;  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white, 
which  is  the  righteousness  of  saints ;  in  the  robes 
of  Chrisfs  righteousness,  both  imjmted  for  justifi- 
cation, and  i7nparted  for  sanctification." 

The  New  Theology  discards  the  doctrine  of 
imputed  righteousness,  and  maintains  that  the  be- 
liever's/«z7A,  being  an  act  which  God  approves, 
and  which  leads  to  other  holy  acts,  is  reckoned 
to  him  for  righteousness  ;  and  in  consequence  of 
it  God  pardons  his  sins  and  receives  him  into  fa- 
vor. "  Faith,  says  Mr.  Finney,  is  the  appointed 
instrument  of  our  justification,  because  it  is  the 
natural  instrument  of  sanctification.  It  is  the  in- 
strument of  bringing  us  back  to  obedience,  and 
therefore  is  designated  as  the  means  of  obtaining 
the  blessings  of  that  return.  It  is  not  imputed  to 
us,  by  an  arbitrary  act,  for  what  it  is  not,  but 
for  what  it  is,  as  the  foundation  of  all  real  obedi- 
ence to  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  faith  is 
made  the  medium  through  which  pardon  comes. 
It  is  simply  set  down  to  us  for  what  it  really  is  ; 
because  it  first  leads  us  to  obey  God  from  a  prin- 
ciple of  love  to  him."  Lectures  to  Professing 
Christians,  p.  221. 

Which  of  these  doctrines  is  more  calculated  to 
humble  the  creature  and  to  honor  Christ  ?  "  If 
faith  itself  is  our  justifying  righteousness,  then  it 
justifies  as  a  work,  as  truly  as  any  other  works 
could  ;  and" "  if  a  man  is  justified  on  account 


Contrast — Human  Ability.  219 

of  the  act  of  believing,  and  that  act  he  can  per- 
form by  the  power  of  free  will,  he  has  as  much 
ground  of  boasting  as  he  could  possibly  have,  if 
he  had  been  justified  by  other  works."  Dr.  Al- 
exander. , 

6.  The  Old  Theology  places  the  sinner  at  the 
threshold  of  sovereign  mercy,  a  dependant  though 
guilty  suppliant  for  grace  and  salvation.  The 
New  gives  him  sufficient  ability  to  do  all  that 
God  requires  of  him,  without  Divine  aid.  In  a 
Review  of  Watson's  Institutes  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  are  found  the  following :  "  He  [Mr. 
Watson]  repeatedly  speaks  of  the  power  of  the 
will,  by  which  he  intends,  of  course,  its  '  gracious 
ability'  before  the  fall,  as  being  lost  by  Adam, 
'  for  himself  and  for  his  descendants.' "...."  Ad- 
mitting it  to  be  true  in  Adam's  case,  that  by  sin- 
ning he  was  shorn  of  his  power  to  obey  God, 
what  has  this  to  do  with  his  posterity  ?  The 
principle  assumed  in  the  argument,  renders  it  im- 
possible, that  their  moral  agency  should  be  un- 
hinged, until  they  exist  and  sin  ;  therefore  Adavn!s 
sin  could  have  no  more  tendency  to  destroy  their 
power  to  choose  good,  or  to  set  their  teeth  on  edge^ 
than  it  had  to  produce  the  same  effects  upon  Satan 

and  his  apostate  Jwst" "  We  should 

like  to  know,  whether  the  admirers  of  Mr.  Wat- 
son believe  it  impossible  for  God  to  create  a  be- 
ing, possessing  in  himself  the   ability  to   choose 


220  Contrast — Regeneration, 

good  and  he  holy,  without  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  ? 
and  if  so,  where  is  his  omnipotence  ?  'If  it  is  ad- 
mitted, that  he  can  create  such  a  being,  we  ask 
whether  the  principles  of  Divine  goverrtment  do 
not  fully  demonstrate,  that-ma«  is  such  a  being  ? 
If  he  is  not,  is  God's  government  adapted  to  him  ? 
What  notion  can  be  formed  of  a  subject  of  moral 
government,  who  is  destitute  of  moral  liberty? 
or  in  other  words,  who,  in  every  instance  of 
obedience  or  disobedience,  does  not  act  with 
inherent  power  to  the  contrary  choice  ?"*  Ch. 
Spec.  1835,  p.  376,  377. 

7.  The  Old  Theology  makes  regeneration  a 
radical  change — a  change  in  the  disposition  and 
temper  of  the  sinner,  as  well  as  in  his  acts.  The 
New  regards  it  as  merely  giving  a  different  di- 
rection to  our  constitutional  desires  ;  but  appears 
to  make  httle  or  no  difference  between  the  prin- 
ciples of  action,  in  converted  and  unconverted 
men.  They  differ  only  as  to  the  "  end  of  pur- 
suit." In  reference  to  a  sentiment  advanced  by 
Dr.  Griffin,  that  the  sinner  has  no  taste  for  holi- 
ness,  and  therefore  cannot  be  regenerated  by  mo- 
tives, Mr.  Gilbert  remarks,  "  The  impenitent  sin- 
ner has  no  *  taste'  for  conviction  ;  his  unholy 
temper  is  as  really  opposed  to  truth  as  to  holi- 


*  Concerning  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  see  Dr.  Beecher's. 
views  and  Dr.  Hervey's  remarks  upon  them  in  ^lapter  *th» 


Contrast—The  Holy  Spirit.  221 


ness ;  and  this  philosophy  would  make  it  as  im- 
possible to  convict  as  to  convert  him  ;  to  sanctify, 
as  to  regenerate  him..  The  unconverted  man  has 
no  'taste',  for  conviction,  nor  the  converted  man 
for .  more  sanctification."  Mark  :  "  The  uncon- 
verted man  has  no  taste  for  conviction,  nor  the 
converted  man  for  more  sanctification  !"  What 
then  is  the  diiference  betvt^een  the  taste  or  tem- 
per or  disposition,  of  an  impenitent  sinner,  and  a 
child  of  God  ?  For  aught  we  can  perceive,  they 
are  precisely  the  same. 

8.  The  Old  -Theology  gives  honor  to  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit — the  New  has  a  tendency  to 
throw  them,  particularly  the  latter,  into  the 
shade.  *'  You  see  (says  Mr.  Finney)  how  unphi- 
losophical  it  is,  while  pressing  the  sinner  to  sub- 
mission, to  divert  his  mind  and  turn  his  attention 
to  the  subject  of  the  Spiri't's  influence.  While  his 
attention  is  directed  to  that  subject,  his  submission 
.is  impossible."  Sermons  on  Important  Subjects, 
p.  61.  Of  course,  those  who  would  be  instru- 
mental in  converting  sinners,  must  say  little  or 
•nothing  about  the  Spirit.*     And  it  is  true  as  a 


*  I  have  in  my  possession  a  written  statement  communic:\ted 
to  me  by  a  very  respectable  minister,  whicli  affords  another  illus- 
tration of  this  sentiment.  Says  he,  "In  the  summer  of  1832, 
while  travelling  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  1  s'pent  a  few 
weeks  in  the  city  of ,  and  gave  assistance,  as  I  was  able, 


222  Contrast — Preaching  Christ, 

matter  of  fact,  that  the  class  of  preachers  to 
which  we  now  refer,  say  almost  as  little  about 
Christ  as  about  the  Spirit.  They  preach  much 
about  submitting  to  God ;  but  they  seldom  exhibit 
the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  in  his  Mediato- 
rial character,  and  the  duty  of  embracing  him  as 
a  Saviour.  The  Apostolic  direction,  "  Believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  exchanged  for  a 
phraseology  w^hich  is  calculated  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  conversion  consists  in  the  mere 
choice  of  God  as  a  moral  Governor.  This  indeed 
is  Mr,  Finney's  account  of  it.     "  It  [a  change  of 


by  request  of  the  Pastor  in church  of  that  place.  Un- 
usual attention  to  religion  existed  when  I  arrived,  and  contin- 
ued for  some  time.  A  strong  tendency  was  manifested  both  to 
new  doctrines  and  new  measures.  One  evening  when  on  the 
way  to  the  church  with  the  pastor,  where  I  had  engaged  to 
preach,  he  requested  I  should  say  nothing  in  my  preaching,  concern- 
ing  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  he  had  new  views  on  repent- 
ance. He  did  not  deny  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  but  thought  it 
should  not  be  preached.  He  was  then  and  still  remains  a  lead, 
ing  member  of  his  synod."  To  this  we  will  add  the  following  .- 
A  former  student  of  Dr.  Taylor  has  informed  me,  verbally, 
that  he  heard  Dr.  Taylor  advance  the  sentiment  in  two  differ- 
ent sermons,  "  that  sinners  must  act  in  the  work  of  conversion  just 
as  if  there  was  no  Holy  Ghost."  To  prove  the  truth  of  his  re- 
mark, he  alluded  to  Acts  xix.  2,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."  He  had  heard,  also, 
through  others,  of  Dr.  Taylor's  advancing  the  same  sentiment 
at  different  times  ;  and  he  believed  he  was  in  the  habit  of  doing" 
it  where  he  preached  a  course  of  revival  sermons. 


Contrast — The  Holy  Scriptures.        223 

heart]  is  a  change  in  the  choice  of  a  Sujyreme  Ru- 
ler"   "  The  world  is  divided  into  two  great  po- 
litical parties  ;  the  difference  between  them  is,  that 
one  party  choose  Satan  as  the  god  of  this  world  ;" 
.  ..."  the  other  party  choose  Jehovah  for  their 
Governor."  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  distinct  person  in 
the  Godhead,  and  faith  in  him  as  our  Redeemer, 
appear  to  have  little  to  do  in  the  process.* 

9.  The  Old  Theology  honors  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures ;  by  drawing  its  doctrines  and  proofs  from 
this  source  alone,  without  calling  in  the  aid  of 
philosophy.  The  New,  resorts  to  the  latter,  in 
order  to  obtain  its  first  principles ;  and  then  in- 
terprets the  former  so  as  to  make  them  accord 
with  these  philosophical  opinions.  This  remark, 
we  are  aware,  may  be  called  in  question.  The 
leaders  in  the  New  School  party  have  had  much 
to  say  concerning  the  "facts'"  of  Scripture,  and 


*  In  the  summer  of  1834,  I  heard  a  sermon  from  Professor 
,  of  New  Haven.     I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  a 


sentiment  in  it  to  which  I  took  exceptions  ;  and  yet  there  was 
such  an  absence  of  what  a  christian  desires  and  expects  to  find, 
in  a  sermon  which  professed  to  teach  us  how  we  may  approach 
God  with  acceptance,  as  to  afford  too  much  reason  for  the  ob- 
servation of  a  pious  and  intelligent  lady  soon  after,  viz  :  "  that 
he  kept  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  so  much  out  of  view,  she 
could  not  help  thinking  he  was  a  deist"  This  lady  had  not  yet 
heard  the  name  or  residence  of  the  preacher ;  and  of  course 
could  not  have  been  influenced  by  any  considerations  of  this 
kind. 


224  Contrast — Philosophy. 

have  charged  their  brethren  of  the  Old  School 
with  resorting  to  philosophy.  But  a  little  investi- 
gation of  this  subject,  v^ill  shew  the  statement  first 
made  to  be  strictly  true.  In  Mr.  Finney's  two 
sermons  on  the  duty  of  sinners  to  change  their 
own  hearts,  he  uses  the  words  philosophy,  philo- 
sophical, unphilosophical,  &c.  at  least  fourteen 
times.  He  tells  us  about  "  the  philosophy  of  con- 
version," "  the^^z7o5op7iy  of  self-examination,'*  and 
"  the  philosophy  of  special  efforts  to  promote  re- 
vivals of  religion."  Every  step  in  the  change  is 
brought  to  the  test  o^ philosophy  :  and  the  failure 
of  the  sinner  to  submit  to  God  is  ascribed  in  one 
instance  t-o  his  not  understanding  the  philosophy 
of  the  process.  "  He,  therefore,  (says  he)  who 
does  not  understand  the  philosophy  of  this  ;  who 
does  not  understand  the  use  and  power  of  atten- 
tion, the  use  and  power  of  conscience,  and  upon 
what  to  fix  his  mind,  to  lead  him  to  a  right  decis- 
ion, will  naturally  complain  that  he  does  not  know 
how  to  submit."  The  Scriptures  are  also  brought 
forward  and  compared  by  this  rule.  "  When  he 
[Joshua]  assembled  the  people  of  Israel  and  laid 
their  duty  before  them,  and  said,  '  choose  you  this 
day  whom  ye  will  serve  ;'  he  did  not  unphilo- 
sophically  remind  them  at  the  same  time  of  their 
dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of  God."  Thus  we 
have  philosophical  preaching,  'philosophical  pro- 
tracted   meetings,  philosojjhical  seif-examination, 


Contrast — Observations.  22  5 

philosophical  submission,  diudi philosophical  conver- 
sion. May  not  the  result  of  the  whole  be  a  mere- 
ly philosophical  christian!.  Other  proofs  which 
might  be  adduced,  from  different  writers,  we 
must  leave  to  those  who  desire  to  examine  this 
subject. 

It  may  possibly  be  said  that  we  have  given 
tnore  prominence  to  Mr.  Finney  than  was  prop- 
er ;  since  he  goes  farther  than  most  of  his  breth- 
ren, and  is  not,  therefore,  a  fair  specimen  of  their 
views.  We  admit  he  has  expressed  himself  more 
freely  than  perhaps  any  one  else  ;  but  if  we  com- 
pare the  quotations  made  from  various  authors, 
we  shall  perceive  they  all  belong  to  the  same 
family.  It  has  been  our  aim  both  in  our  state- 
ments and  quotations,  to  exhibit  the  doctrines  of 
the  New  Theology  just  as  they  are,  without  the 
least  exaggeration.  For  this  purpose  our  extracts 
from  New  School  authors  have  been  numerous, 
and  sufficiently  extended  as  to  length,  to  give  a 
correct  view  of  their  sentiments.  But  if  it  can  be 
made  to  appear  that  we  have  misrepresented 
their  views  in  a  single  important  point,  we  shaU 
cheerfully  rectify  the  mistake. 


PerfectioMisHi  of  Mr.  Fiiuiey. 

There  is  one  extreme  into  which  Mr.  Finney 
has  fallen,  that  we  by  no  means  charge  upon  the 
New  School,  as  a  body — and  we  have  therefore  as 
yet  entirely  omitted  it.  "VVe  mean  his  perfection- 
ism. In  this  we  presume  he  has  few  followers. 
We  will  however  bestow  upon  it  a  little  attention, 
that  it  may  serve  as  a  beacon  to  admonish  those 
who  have  embarked  on  the  voyage  of  religious 
discovery. 

In  his  Lectures  to  professing  Christians,  he  has 
two  on  Christian  Perfection ;  and  he  adverts  to 
the  subject  in  several  others.  He  defines  perfec- 
tion in  the  following  words  ;  "  It  is  to  love  the 
Lord  our  God  with  ail  our  heart  and  soul  and 
mind  and  strength,  and  to  love  our  neighbor  as 
ourselves."  This  he  maintains  is  attainable  in  the 
present  life.  "  L  God  wills  it.  2.  All  the  prom- 
ises and  prophecies  of  God  that  respect  the  sanc- 
tification  of  believers  in  this  world,  are  to  be  un- 
derstood of  course  of  their  perfect  sanctification. 
3.  Perfect  sanctification  is  the  great  blessing 
promised,  throughout  the  Bible.  4.  The  perfect 
sanctification  of  believers  is  the  very  object  for 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised.  5.  If  it  is  not 
a  practicable  duty  to  be  perfectly  holy  in  this 


Perfection  in  Knowledge.  227 

world,  then  it  will  follow  that  the  devil  has  so 
completely  accomplished  his  design  in  corrupting 
mankind,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  at  a  fault,  and  has 
no  way  to  sanctify  his  people  but  to  take  them  out 
of  the  world.  6.  If  perfect  sanctification  is  not 
attainable  in  this  world,  it  must  be,  either  from  a 
want  of  motives  in  the  gospel,  or  a  want  of  suffi- 
cient power  in  the  Spirit  of  God." 

In  another  lecture  he  appears  to  teach  perfec- 
tion in  knowledge  as  well  as  in  holiness ;  amount- 
ing to  an  illumination  little  short  of  Divine  inspi- 
ration. "  The  manner  m  which  the  Spirit  of  God 
does  this,"  says  he,  i.  e.  communicates  ideas  to  the 
mind  without  the  use  of  words,  "  is  what  we  can 
never  know  in  this  world.  But  the  fact  is  unde- 
niable, that  he  can  reach  the  mind  without  the  use 
of  words,  and  can  put  our  minds  in  possession  of 
the  ideas  themselves,  of  which  the  types,  or  figures, 
or  words,  of  the  human  teacher,  are  only  the 
signs  or  imperfect  representatives."  ....  "  The 
needed  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  may  be 
possessed  by  all  men  freely  under  the  gospel." .... 
"  They  [ministers]  should  not  attempt  to  explain 
passages  of  which  they  are  not  confident  they  have 
been  taught  the  jneaning  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is 
presumption.  And  they  need  not  do  it,  for  they 
may  always  have  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit  by 
asking."  .  . .  .  "  This  is  apphcable  both  to  preach- 
ers and  to  teachers  in  sabbath  schools  and  bible 


228  Christ  becomes  responsible. 

classes."  .  .  .  .  "  Will  you  lay  your  hearts  open  to 
God,  and  not  give  him  rest,  till  he  has  filled  you 
with  Divine  knowledge  ?" 

In  other  lectures  he  goes  farther  still,  and  main- 
tains, if  I  understand  his  language,  that  when  the 
christian  has  thus  given  himself  up  entirely  to 
Christ,  to  be  taught  and  governed  by  him,  he  be- 
comes so  identified  with  Christ,  that  his  spirit, and 
Christ's  Spirit  are,  morally  considered,  one — Christ 
becomes  responsible  for  his  acts ;  and  of  course 
he  not  only  ceases  from  sin,  but  he  cannot  com- 
mit sin.  Whatever  he  does,  Christ  is  responsible 
for  it.  This  he  calls  entering  into  rest.  "  When  one 
ceases  from  his  ow  n  works,  he  so  perfectly  gives  up 
his  own  interest  and  his  own  will,  and  places  him- 
self so  perfectly  under  the  dominion  and  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  whatever  he  does  is  done 
by  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  ..."  They 
are  in  one  sense  our  works,  because  we  do  them 
by  our  voluntary  agency.  Yet  in  another  sense 
they  are  his  works,  because  he  is  the  moving 
cause  of  all."  .  ..."  He  [Christ]  is  just  as  abso- 
lutely your  sanctification,  as  your  justification.  If 
you  depend  upon  him  for  sanctification,  he  will  no 
more  let  you  sin  than  he  will  let  you  go  to  hell." 
. ,  .  .  "  The  reputation  of  the  wife  is  wholly  united 
to  that  of  her  husband,  so  that  his  reputation  is 
hers,  and  her  reputation  is  his.  What  aflfects  her 
character  affects  his  ;  and  what  aftects  his  char- 


Antinomianism — Mr.  Finney.  229 

acter  affects  hers.  Their  reputation  is  one,  their 
interests  are  one.  So  with  the  church,  whatever 
concerns  the  church  is  just  as  much  the  interest 
of  Christ,  as  if  it  was  personally  his  own  matter." 
..."  If  any  actions  or  civil  liability  come  against 
the  wife,  the  husband  is  responsible.  If  the  wife 
has  committed  a  trespass,  the  hasband  is  answer- 
able. It  is  his  business  to  guide  and  govern  her, 
and  her  business  to  obey,  and  if  he  does  not  re- 
strain her  from  breaking  the  laws,  he  is  respon- 
sible." .  ..."  In  like  manner,  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord 
over  his  church,  and  if  he  does  not  actually  restrain 
his  church  from  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for." .... 
"  It  is  his  business  to  take  care  of  the  church,  and 
control  her,  and  keep  her  from  sin  ;  and  for  every 
sin  of  every  member,  Jesus  Christ  is  responsible, 
and  must  answer."  .  .  .  .  "  O  !  if  believers  would 
only  throw  themselves  wholly  on  Christ,  and 
make  him  responsible,  by  placing  themselves  en- 
tirely at  his  control,  they  woukl  know  his  power 
to  save,  and  would  live  without  sin." 

We  have  given  these  extracts  at  some  length, 
that  those  who  have  not  access  to  his  Lectures, 
may  obtain  a  full  view  of  his  sentiments.  It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  remurk,  that  the  sentences 
last  quoted  are  Antinomian.  The  history  of  Anti- 
nomianism does  not  furnish  many  expressions, 
more  licentious  in  their  tendency  than  these.  This 
heresy  is  more  frequently  the  result  of  an  abuse 
u 


230  Mr,  Finnef/s  Perfectionism. 

of  the  doctrines  of  grace  ;  but  in  the  present  in- 
stance, it  appears  to  have  originated  in  an  oppo- 
site cause,  viz.  in  those  views  of  human  abihty, 
which  render  grace  in  a  measure  superfluous.* 
"  There  is,"  says  he,  "  no  more  moral  inability  to 
be  perfectly  holy,  than  there  is  to  be  holy  at  all." 
On  the  same  principle,  therefore,  that  he  could 
preach  to  the  sinner  the  practicability  of  changing 
his  own  heart,  he  might  argue  that  the  christian 
can  arrive  at  perfect  hohness  in  this  life.  He 
actually  adopts  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  in 
both  cases.  It  is  therefore  very  natural  to  con- 
clude, that  the  frequent  discussion  of  the  subject 
of  ability  in  reference  to  the  sinner,  had  much  to 
do  in  forming  his  opinions  with  regard  to  christian 
perfection.  Having  arrived  at  this  point,  he  ap- 
plied his  ideas  of  perfection,  not  only  to  our  sanc- 


*  If  is  supposed  by  some  that  there  is  no  logical  connexion 
between  Mr.  Finney's  former  and  present  views — but  that  he 
has  got  upon  a  new  track.  Formerly,  as  one  observes,  "  he  left 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  almost  out  of  view;  he  hardly 
preached  the  gospel  at  all ;  but  now  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  every  thing.  He  pushes  union  with  Christ,  imputation, 
covenant  relation,  &c.  into  Antinomianism."  The  only  con- 
nexion, he  says,  between  the  latter  and  his  Pelagianism,  is  that 
"he  is  a  fanatic  now  as  he  was  before,"  But  as -others  think 
differently,  we  shall  state  the  probable  process  by  which  it  is 
supposed  he  was  led  into  these  errors.  Yet  whether  they  are 
the  "logical  sequence"  of  his  former  views  or  not,  they  furnish 
an  instructive  lesson  to  those  who  are  disposed  to  countenance 
error. 


Mr,  Finney^s  Perfectionism.  231 

lification,  but  to  all  our  relations  to  God.  In 
a  lecture  from  the  text,  "  Who  of  God  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanc- 
tification,  and  redemption ;"  he  considers  each 
of  the  terms  as  conveying  an  idea  equally  ex- 
pressive. Since  then,  according  to  the  views 
which  he  had  previously  adopted,  sanctifica- 
tion  was  to  be  taken  as  implying  perfect  holi- 
ness, the  perfectibility  of  wisdom  would  seem  to 
follow  as  a  consequence.  Hence  he  says  in  re- 
gard to  this,  "  As  he  [Christ]  is  the  infinite  source 
of  wisdom,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he  is  made 
unto  us  wisdom,  unless  we  are  partakers  of  his 
wisdom,  and  have  it  guaranteed  to  us  ;  so  that,  at 
any  time,  if  we  trust  in  him,  \\q  may  have  it  as 
certainly,  and  in  any  degree  we  need,  to  guide  us 
as  infallibly,  as  if  we  had  it  originally  ourselves  ?" 
Thus  we  are  brought  into  the  field  of  fanaticism. 
The  only  condition  required  in  order  to  obtain 
either  wisdom  or  sanctification,  is  faith.  "  The 
act  of  the  mind,  says  he,  that  thus  throws  the  soul 
into  the  hand  of  Christ  for  sanctification,  is  faith. 
Nothing  is  wanting,  but  for  the  mind  to  break  off 
from  any  confidence  in  itself,  and  to  give  itself  up 
to  him,  to  be  led  and  controlled  by  him,  abso- 
lutely." Then  Christ  assumes  the  responsibility ; 
he  undertakes  to  do  all  for  him  that  he  needs  ; 
he  becomes  accountable  for  his  conduct.  Says 
he,  "  Until  an  individual  receives  Christ,  he  does 


^32  Mi\  Finnei/s  Perfectionism. 

not  cease  from  his  own  works.  The  moment  he 
does  that,  by  this  very  act  he  throws  the  entire 
responsibility  upon  Christ.  The  moment  the  mind 
does  fairly  yield  itself  up  to  Chritit,  the  responsi- 
bility comes  upon  him,  just  as  the  person  who  un- 
dertakes to  conduct  the  blind  man  is  responsible 
for  his  safe  conduct.  The  believer  by  the  act  of 
faith  pledges  Christ  for  his  obedience  and  sanctifi- 
cation.  By  giving  himself  up  to  Christ,  all  the 
veracity  of  the  Godhead  is  put  at  stake,  that  he 
shall  be  led  aright,  or  made  holy."  Here  we  have 
the  final  result  of  the  whole  process.  By  the  prop- 
er exercise  of  our  free  will,  we  can  first  change 
our  own  hearts,  or  in  other  words,  put  forth  the 
"  act"  of  saving  faith  upon  Jesus  Christ.  By  the 
proper  exercise  of  the  same  free  will,  we  can 
put  forth  a  stronger  "act"  of  faith,  and  make  him 
our  wisdom  and  sanctification  :■ — our  wisdom,  in 
such  a  sense,  that  he  will  "  guide  us  infallibly,  as 
if  we  had  it  originally  ourselves  :" — and  our  sanc- 
tification, so  entire  and  absolute,  that  Christ  be- 
comes responsible  for  our  conduct,  and  "if  he  does 
not  restrain  us  from  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer 
for." 

In  the  March  number  of  the  Literary  and  The^ 
ological  Review,  there  is  an  able  article  on  this 
subject ;  from  which  we  will  make  the  following 
extract.  "  In  the  works  before  us  [refering  to 
Mr.  Finney's  Sermons  and  Lectures,]  we  have  an 


Extract  from  the  Theo.  Review.  233 

authentic  genealogy  of  sl  family  of  errors.     We 
are  not  obliged,  as   in   other  instances,  to  trace 
them   through    successive    generations   of  men. 
They  are  all  found  in  the  same  mind,  and  Pelagi- 
anism,  as  contsiined  in  the  preceding  extracts,  is 
the  venerable  ancestor  of  them  all.     From  his  in- 
fancy it  was  remarked  that  he  was  an  uncommon 
child.     Unlike  other  children,  he  was  by  nature 
neither  "  sinful  nor  holy."     Unhappily,  however, 
very  soon  after  his  birth,  he  ''fell  into  a  state  of 
supreme  selfishness"  from  which  even  the "  phys- 
ical power  of  God"  could  not  extricate  him.     But 
he   had  rare  abilities,  and  a  "  giant  strength"  of 
will,  which  he  could  hardly  refrain  from  calling 
" the  strength  of  Omnipotence"     And  therefore, 
he  always  believed  himself  to  be  one  of  those  who 
could  be   recovered  "  ivith   the   wisest  amount  of 
moral  influence."     He  had  elevated  notions  of  hu- 
man virtue,  and  would  suffer  no  change  to  be 
made  in  his  condition,  which  was  not  produced 
by  "  his  own  act."     He  was  willing,  indeed,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  should  operate  on  him,  provided 
it  were  only  as  an  earthly  advocate  acts  on  a  jury. 
He  was  willing  that  "  motives  should  he  gathered 
from  all  worlds  and  poured  in  a  focal  hlaze  on  his 
mind."     He  was  anxious  to  receive  good  counsel 
from  his  friends,  and  reverently  to  hear  divine 
truth  ;  but  the  change  from  "  supreme  selfishness" 
hQ  declared  to  be  his  own  '•  appropriate  work  ;" 


234  Pcrfectionisni — Theo.  Review. 

and  he  was  at  length  accustomed  to  say,  .that  he 
had  effected  it  by  "/«'*'  own  actJ^  It  was  natural 
to  suppose,  that  the  theological  children  of  such  a 
system  would  have  some  remarkable  characteris- 
tics. In  Pelagius  and  Ccelestius  it  had  produced 
Perfectionism,  and  there  was  reason  to  fear  that 
in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Finney,  it  would  generate  the 
same  progeny.  In  various  parts  of  the  land  the 
system  had  been  earnestly  inculcated.  Its  most 
sagacious  disciples  were  beginning  to  declare 
themselves  to  "  be  perfect,^'  to  have  "  rolled  the  re- 
sponsihility  of  their  future  and  eternal  obedience 
on  an  everlasting  arm  ,*"  to  receive  "  immediate 
communications  from  God  ;"  to  h^  ^'^  personally 
united  to  Him!^  and  have  "  entered  into  rest." 
These  heresies  were  early  demonstrated  to  have 
had  their  origin  in  the  system  itself  As  Mr.  Fin- 
ney had  been  the  Apostle  of  this  system  in  these 
latter  days,  it  was  intimated  that  his  doctrines,  as 
inculcated  in  his  preaching  and  by  the  press,  had 
tended  to  produce  these  impieties.  This  view  of 
the  subject  was  indignantly  repelled  even  by  the 
candid  ones  among  his  followers.  The  thought 
that  his  doctrines  had  produced  such  results,  they 
could  not  for  a  moment  entertain.  Although  oth- 
ers had  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Finney  was  the  true  pa- 
rent of  Perfectionism,  they  had  more  opinion  of 
his  caution,  than  to  suppose  he  could  soon  be  in- 
duced openly  to  own  and  adopt  it.  But,  to  the 
amazement  of  all,  he  now  comes  forth,  bringing 


Literary  ^  Theo.  Review.  235 

with  him  for  induction  into  the  church,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  perfection  of  the  saints  in  this  life,  of 
the  responsibility  of  Christ  for.  his  people,  of  im- 
mediate communications  to  them  from  God,  and 
of  their  entrance  into  rest  even  in  this  world. 
These  last  views  were  not  developed  till  he  had 
abandoned  the  Presbyterian  church.  Eve  r  since 
their  publication,  it  is  almost  inconceivable  by 
those  who  have  heard  of  him  chiefly  as  a  promo- 
ter of  revivals,  and  have  been  unwilling  to  Hsten 
to  the  notes  of  warning,  so  long  honestly  and  re- 
sponsively  sounded  by  individuals — it  is  almost 
inconceivable,  that  he  has  inculcated  these  fanati- 
cal doctrines.  Even  the  Christian  Spectator, 
though  it  fears  "he  may  be  liable  to  misconstruc- 
tion and  injure  the  consciences  of  many  weak  and 
pious  persons,"  declares, "  we  do  not  believe  he 
means  any  thing  more  than  we  should  fully  ad- 
mit— the  possibility  and  duty  of  obedience  to  God 
in  all  things  commanded.''  But  this  view  of  his 
meaning  it  is  impossible  to  sustain  either  by  indi- 
vidual sentences,  or  the  evident  design  of  his  Lec- 
tures on  these  subjects.  His  errors  are  written 
so  legibly,  that  he  who  runs  may  read.  Mr.  Fin- 
ney now  stands  before  the  community  as  a  prac- 
tical illustration  of  the  effects  of  rejecting  the  doc- 
trine, that  human  nature  is  depraved :  and  of  be- 
lieving, that  in  regeneration  and  fanctiiication,^//e 
work  of  the  Spirit  is  confined  chiefiy  to  the  under^ 
standing" 


COINCLUSION. 

If  the  statements  contained  in  this  volume  are 
to  be  relied  upon  ;  in  other  words,  if  New  School 
writers  maintain  those  sentiments  which  are 
clearly  conveyed  by  their  language,  they  have 
widely  departed  from  "  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints."  But  should  any  be  still  disposed 
to  repeat  the  remark,  '  There  is  no  difference  ; 
the  contest  is  a  mere  logomachy,'  &c. ;  we  will 
refer  them,  first,  to  the  action  of  the  General  As- 
sembly in  former  years,  condemning  as  heretical 
those  very  doctrines  substantially,  which  now 
make  a  part  of  the  New  Theology. 

In  1798,  the  case  of  Rev.  H.  Balch.  came  be- 
fore the  Assembly  by  way  of  reference  from  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas.  The  following  is  a  part 
of  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  on  this  subject. 
"  With  regard  to  his  doctrine  of  original  sin,  it  is 
to  be  observed,  that  he  is  erroneous  in  represent- 
ing personal  corruption  as  not  derived  from 
Adam ;  making  Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his 
posterity  in  consequence  of  a  corrupt  nature  al- 
ready possessed,  and  derived  from,  w^e  know  not 
what ;  thus  in  effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of 
Adam's  being  the  federal  head,  or  representative 
of  his  descendants,  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
covenant  of  works." 


Case  of  Balch  and  Davis.  237 

"  It  is  also  manifest  that  Mr.  B.  is  greatly  er- 
roneous in  asserting  that  the  formal  cause  of  a 
believer's  justification  is  the  imputation  of  the 
fruits  and  effects  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and 
not  that  righteousness  itself;  because  righteous- 
ness, and  that  alone,  is  the  formal  demand  of  the 
law,  and  consequently  the  sinner's  violation  of  the 
Divine  law,  can  be  pardoned  only  in  virtue  of  the 
Redeemer's  perfect  righteousness  being  imputed 
to  him  and  reckoned  as  his.  It  is  also  not  true 
that  the  benefits  of  Christ's  righteousness  are, 
with  strict  propriety,  said  to  be  imputed  at  all,  as 
these  benefits  flow  to,  and  are  possessed,  hy^  the 
believer,  as  a  consequence  of  his  justification  and 
having  an  interest  in  the  infinite  merits  of  the 
Saviour." 

In  1810,  a  work  of  Rev.  William  C.  Davis,  en- 
titled the  "  Gospel  Plan,"  came  before  the  As- 
sembly, by  an  overture  from  the  Synod  of  the 
Carolinas.  Among  the  doctrines  contained  in  the 
book  of  an  exceptionable  character,  and  which 
the  Assembly  condemned,  are  the  following: 
"  That  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  constitutes 
no  part  of  that  righteousness  by  which  a  sinner 
is  justified  ;"  that  "  God  could  not  make  Adam, 
or  any  other  creature,  either  holy  or  unholy ;" 
and  that,  "  if  God  has  to  plant  all  the  principal 
parts  of  salvation  in  a  sinner's  heart,  to  enable 
him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is  quite  out  of  his 


238  Testimony  of  Unitarians. 

reach,  and  consequently  does  not  suit  his  case ; 
and  it  must  be  impossible  for  God  to  condemn  a 
man  for  unbelief ;  for  no  just  law  condemns  or 
criminates  any  person  for  not  doing  what  he 
cannot  do."  Concerning  these  doctrines  the  As- 
sembly resolved  that  they  are  "  contrary  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith  of  our  church."  Assembly's 
Digest,  p.  130,  145,  146,  147. 

If  the  persons  before  alluded  to,  are  not  yet 
satisfied  that  there  is  a  palpable  and  important 
difference  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology, 
we  will  refer  them,  secondly,  to  the  opinion  of 
Unitarians,  as  expressed  in  the  review  of  Mr. 
Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans,  in  the  Christian 
Examiner  ;  one  or  two  extracts  from  which  have 
already  been  made.  "  In  conclusion  we  w^ould 
say,  (observes  the  reviewer,)  that  while  our  or- 
thodox brethren  publish  and  circulate  and  re- 
ceive with  favor  such  books  as  these  "Notes," 
ws  most  cordially  extend  to  them  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship,  even  though  they  refuse  to  return 
it.  We  regard  them  as  fellow  laborers  with  us, 
for  the  overthow  of  time-hallowed  absurdities ; 
for  the  cleansing  of  the  christian  creed  from 
*  whatever  defileth  and  maketh  a  lie.'  Calvinism 
is'  now  a  house  divided  against  itself.  It  embra- 
ces within  its  walls  two,  not  only  distinct,  but 
opposite  sects  ;*  the  one  that  of  the  friends,  the 

*  This  was  written  in  1836. 


Ohservations  and  Remarks.  239 

other  that  of  the  enemieg  of  free  enquiry  ; — the 
one  that  of  the  votaries  of  reason,  the  other  that 
of  the  bhnd-fold  recipients  of  a  traditional  faith. 
The  house  is  tottering,  is  on  the  point  of  falling  j 
and  when  it  falls,  we  confidently  expect  to  re- 
ceive into  the  citadel  of  liberal  Christianity,  and 
shall  greet  with  a  most  hearty  welcome,  those,  be- 
neath whose  w^ell-aimed  blows,  the  walls  of  the 
old  mansion  are  shaking,  and  its  foundation 
crumbling." 

That  ministers  of  the  gospel  should  entertain 
the  opinion,  (as  some  do,)  that  there  is  no  mate- 
rial difference  between  the  two  systems,  is  truly 
astonishing.  It  results  in  part,  we  believe,  from 
inattention.  But  men  who  have  devoted  their 
lives  to  the  "cure  of  souls,"  who  have  been  pla- 
ced by  the  Head  of  the  church,  as  "  watchmen 
to  the  house  of  Israel,"  are  bound,  it  appears  to 
me,  to  make  themselves  thoroughly  acquainted 
with  these  things.  Civilians  and  men  of  busi- 
ness have  some  apology  for  their  want  of  infor- 
mation— it  not  being  in  general  compatible  with 
their  pursuits,  to  attend  very  minutely  to  theolog- 
ical discussion.  Hence  it  is  not  so  wonderful 
that  a  considerable  number  of  this  class,  vi^ho  are 
sound  in  the  faith,  should  be  disposed,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  charity  which  "  hopeth  all  things," 
to  indulge  the  belief  that  the  grounds  of  contro- 
versy are  less  important  than  some  have  suppo- 


240  Arianism,  how  treated, 

sed.  But  if  they  will  take  sufficient  time  to  ex- 
amine the  subject,  until  they  become  fully  ac- 
quainted with  the  questions  in  debate,  we  believe 
their  minds  will  undergo  a  similar  change  to  that 
of  the  Emperor  Constantino,  with  regard  to  the 
Arian  heresy. 

After  the  discussion  had  commenced  between 
Arius  and  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria  in 
Egypt,  but  prior  to  the  council  of  Nice,  at  which 
the  Emperor  presided  and  gave  his  consent  to 
the  condemnation  of  the  Arian  doctrine,  he  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  Alexander  and  Arius,  with  a 
view  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation  ;  in  which  he 
says,  "  The  honor  and  character  of  the  assembly 
of  christians  may  be  preserved  entire,  and  the 
same  communion  retained  among  you  all,  not- 
withstanding you  may  greatly  differ  among  your- 
selves in  matters  of  very  little  if?iporfanceJ^  ^. 
.  .  .  .  "  Your  subtle  disputes  and  inquiries  respect- 
ing these  trifling  matters,  if  you  cannot  agree  iii 
sentiment,  should  remain  in  your  own  thoughts, 
and  be  laid  up  in  the  secret  depths  of  the  mind." 
But  before  the  close  of  the  Nicene  council,  the 
points  of  difference  did  not  appear  to  him  "  trifling 
matters."  The  Emperor  wrote  two  letters  at  the 
close  of  the  council,  in  one  of  which,  directed  to 
the  churches  in  general,*  he  "  informs  them  that 

+  The  ether  was  addressed  to  the  church  at  Alexandria. 


Nicene  Council — Constantine.  141 

the  faith  has  been  examined,  and  placed  in  so 
clear  a  light  that  no  difficulty  remains."  At  the 
same  time  he  published  "  an  edict  directed  to  the 
bishops  and  people,  condemning  Arius  and  his  writ- 
ings. He  says  that  Porphyry,  having  composed 
impious  books  against  Christianity,  rendered  him- 
self infamous  in  the  eyes  of  posterity,  and  that 
his  writings  were  destroyed.  It  has  in  like  man- 
ner, he  continues,  been  decreed,  that  Arius  and 
his  followers  be  called  Porphyrians,  so  that  they 
may  bear  the  name  of  him  whom  they  have  imi- 
tated ;  and  that  if  any  book  written  by  Arius 
shall  be  found,  it  shall  be  committed  to  the  flames, 
that  no  monument  of  his  corrupt  doctrine  may 
descend  to  future  ages."  Historical  View  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  p.  27,  40,  41. 

It  must  not  be  understood  from  this  illustration 
that  we  mean  to  insinuate  that  our  New  School 
brethren  are  Arians.  All  we  intend  is,  that  their 
errors  are  real  and  not  imaginary  ;  that  they  are 
not  small,  but  important ;  and  that  the  counter 
opinion  of  those  men  is  entitled  to  little  influence, 
however  intelligent  and  pious  and  orthodox  they 
may  be,  who  have  not  paid  sufficient  attention  to 
the  subject,  even  to  state  with  precision,  the 
points  in  controversy.  Let  them  seriously  and 
carefully  examine  the  New  School  doctrines,  and 
we  cannot  doubt,  they  will  be  obliged  to  ac- 
knowledge, that  if  our   Confession  of  Faith  is 


142  Observatiotis  and  Remarks. 

agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  those  doctrines  must 
belong  to  *'  another  gospel." 

To  me  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  were  alarmed.  The  wonder  is,  that 
the  alarm  was  not  sooner  and  universally  felt. 
If  efficient  measures  had  been  adopted  ten  years 
ago,  when  those  errors  had  just  made  their  ap- 
pearance, they  might  have  been  rectified  without 
a  division.  But  they  were  suffered  to  remain 
and  spread,  until  they  became  so  prevalent,  that 
discipline  was  impracticable  ;  and  either  some 
extraordinary  measures  must  be  resorted  to,  or 
the  church  be  ruined.  To  use  the  language  of 
an  excellent  and  distinguished  brother  in  the 
ministry,  "  We  were  reduced  to  this  simple  ques- 
tion. Is  the  Presbyterian  church  worth  an  effort 
to  save  ?"  Under  these  circumstances,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1837  were  called  to  act :  and 
though,  from  the  mode  of  procedure  which  they 
were  obliged  to  adopt,  they  separated  from  them, 
for  the  time  being,  some  whom  they  would  have 
gladly  retained  ;  subsequent  events  have  already 
proved,  that  those  measures  will  result  in  great 
good.  Those  discordant  materials  which  have 
for  years  past  rendered  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly  an  arena  of  strife,  are  now  removed. 
The  church  purified  from  error  and  harmonious 
in  action,  may  now  engage  with  efficiency  and 
success,  in  her  appropriate  work  of  carrying  the 


Observations  and  ReinavTis.  143 

symbols  of  her  faith  to  a  perishing  world.  We 
have  now  no  pretext  for  inaction.  While  we  re- 
joice in  the  zeal  and  success  of  every  branch  of 
Christ's  church,  who  are  engaged  in  the  work  of 
preaching  the  gospel,  let  us  not  be  behind  them, 
either  in  the  expansiveness  or  efficiency  of  our 
benevolence. 


FINIS. 


ERRATA. 

Page  13,  7th  line  from  top,  for  religon,  read  "religion." 

*'     42,  22d  do.  for  deprivation,  read  "  depravation." 

"     46,  24th  do.  for  term,  read  "terms." 

"     49,  3d  do.  for  proper,  read  "propter." 

"  52,  5th  line  from  bottom,  for  sentiment,  read  "senti- 
ments." 

"     59,  4th  do.  for  idenily,  read  "  identity.^^ 

"     63,  1 1th  line  from  top,  for  man,  read  "  men." 

"  73,  7th  do.  for  the  words  but  in  possession,  read  "but 
not  in  possession." 

"     94,  bottom  line,  for  that,  read  "  and." 

"  107,  13th  hne  from  top,  for  satisfation,  read  "satisfac 
tion." 

"  110,  12th  do.  for  endownents,  read  "  endowments," 

"   165,  21st  do.  for  effect,  read  "  effect." 


Date  Due 

4^^^2^^ 

'»■ 

mmmmm^ 

--  '  n            n^^ 

a^. 

«mmmm^- 

^mmm^ 

.iWTTJiW- 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

